(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 
I I II I II I 



3 1223 06446 9860 



s/s 




San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94*02 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Sot to be taken from the Library 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/4minutes2002sanf 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Clerk: GailJohnson 



Wednesday, May 01, 2002 



12:30 PM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano. 



President Ammiano appointed himself to serve as a member of the Finance Committee. 
MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 12:45 p.m. 

020654 [Controller's Nine-Month Financial Report] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Hearing regarding the Controller's Nine-Month Financial Report. 

4/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Supervisor Peskin; Supervisor Daly; Jim 

Corrigan. 

FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020535 [Unrepresented Employees] 
Mayor 

Ordinance fixing compensation for persons employed by the City and County of San Francisco whose 
compensations are subject to the provisions of Section A8.409 of the Charter, injobcodes not represented by 
an employee organization, and establishing working schedules and conditions of employment and. methods of 
payment, effective July 1, 2002. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

4/3/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled at the April 17, 2002 meeting 

4/24/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Alice Villagomez, Deputy Director, Employee 

Relations Division, Human Resources Department; Jonathan Holtzman, Mayor's Office. 

Continued to 5/1/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Supervisor Peskin, on behalf of department 

Amendment of the Whole; same title. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of Son Francisco 



Primed a 5:25 I'M on I ] 04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 1, 2002 



020475 [Appropriation - City Attorney Affirmative Litigation Program] 

Ordinance appropriating 5508,673 from the code enforcement settlement on 351 California Street and 
S442,741 from the reserve for the Hanlon Arbitration Award, for a total of $951,414, for the Affirmative 
Litigation Program in the City Attorney's Office in fiscal year 2001-02. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

4/1/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kimon Manolius, Deputy City Attorney; 

Taylor Emerson, Mayor's Budget Office. 

Amended on page 1, line 3, after "appropriating, " and on page one, line 8, after "appropriated, " by adding 

"retroactively. " 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating, retroactively, $508,673 from the code enforcement settlement on 351 California 

Street and 5442,741 from the reserve for the Hanlon Arbitration Award, for a total of $951,414, for the 

Affirmative Litigation Program in the City Attorney's Office in fiscal year 2001-02. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020468 [MOU Amendment No. 4, SEIU, AFL-CIO Locals 250. 535, and 790] 

Ordinance adopting and implementing Amendment No. 4 to the 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement 
between the City and County of San Francisco and the Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 
Locals 250, 535 and 790 by amending Article IV. D (Additional Compensation and Premium Pay) to provide 
for POST and/or Educational Premium pay for employees assigned to classification 2580 (Medical Examiner 
Investigator). (Human Resources Department) 
3/26/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Alice Villagomez, Deputy Director. Employee 
Relations Division, Department of Human Resources; Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Peskin; Dr. Boyd 
Stephens, Medical Examiner; Lawana Preston, Local 790. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020486 [Supplemental Appropriation, Department of Elections] 

Ordinance appropriating $2,167,924 of the General Reserve to fund other current expenses, materials and 
supplies, and equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2001-02. (Finance Committee) 
3/20/02, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Divided from File 020248. 
3/20/02. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Joe Skeltar, Thrifty Rental Car. 
Continued to 5/8/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:26 PM on 3/2/04 



3 1223 06446 9860 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 1, 2002 



020494 [Parking Meter Management System] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Department of Parking and Traffic to execute an 
agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Serco Management Services, Inc. for a Parking 
Meter Management System. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Daly dissenting in Committee.) 

3/25/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Peskin; 
Supervisor Daly; Fred Hamdun, Executive Director, Department of Parking and Traffic; Ted Lakey, Deputy 
City Attorney; Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Finance, (DPT); Ed Harrington, 
Controller; David Frieders, Director, Department of Consumer Assurance. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Daly 



020495 [Certification of Lower Cost of Services] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that a proposed agreement with Serco Management 
Services, Inc. for a Parking Meter Management System which includes collection and coin counting services, 
can practically be performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than similar services performed by City 
and County employees. 

(Fiscal impact; Companion measure to File 020494.) 
(Supervisor Daly dissenting in Committee.) 
3/25/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers; Supervisor Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Super\>isor Peskin; 
Supervisor Daly; Fred Hamdun, Executive Director, Department of Parking and Traffic; Ted Lakey. Deputy- 
City Attorney; Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Finance, (DPT); Ed Harrington, 
Controller; David Frieders, Director, Department of Consumer Assurance. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Daly 



The Chair will entertain a motion to continue consideration of the following items (Files 011178 
and 011716) to a future meeting: 



011178 [Motor Vehicle for Hire Permit Filing Fees and License Fees] 

Ordinance amending Sections 2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the Police Code to amend schedules for motor vehicle for 

hire permit filing fees and license fees. (Taxi Commission) 

8/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Speakers: None. 

Continued to 5/8/02. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Daly 



City and County of San Francisco 



Prinii-d al 5:26 I'M M < 1 94 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 1, 2002 



011716 [Airport Trip Fee Pass Through] 
Supervisors Daly, Newsom 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code by amending Article 16, Section 1 135 (a) to allow taxicab 
drivers to collect a S2.00 pass through fee from passengers when a trip fee is incurred at San Francisco 
International Airport. (Airport Commission) 
9/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Speakers: None. 
Continued to 5/8/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Daly 



SPECIAL ORDER - 2:00 PM 



020615 |Grant - Mayor's Office of Community Development] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the 2002 Community Development Program. Authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the 
City and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2002 Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) entitlement from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Program Income of 
S33,722, 231 which include indirect costs of SI 60,000, and approving expenditure schedules for recipient 
departments and agencies and for indirect costs. (Mayor) 
4/17/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pamela David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development: Daryl Higashi, Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Peskin; Jon Pon 
(MOCD); Phil Ting, Chair, Advisory Committee on Community Development; Ann Cochrane, San Francisco 
Conservation Corp.; Niesha Brown; Charles Hargraves; JeffNeider, Charity Cultural Service Center; Ed 
Tong, Asian Inc.; Mauro Tumbocon, West Bay Philipino Multiservice Center; Sam Kwong; Supervisor Daly; 
Olivia Chan; Jennifer Moxley, Bay Area Legal Aid; Supervisor Ammiano. 
Amended by placing funds in the amount of $175,510 on reserve. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving the 2002 Community Development Program. Authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the 
City and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2002 Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) entitlement from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Program Income of 
S33,722,231 which include indirect costs of $160,000, and approving expenditure schedules for recipient 
departments and agencies and for indirect costs; placing $175,510 on reserve. (Mayor) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 5:26 PM on 3/2/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 1, 2002 



020616 [Grant - Emergency Shelter] 
Mayor, Supervisor Newsom 

Resolution approving the 2002 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule; and authorizing 
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to accept, and expend an 5879,000 entitlement 
under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 
(Mayor) 

4/17/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pamela David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Peskin; Jon Pon 
(MOCD); Phil Ting, Chair, Advisory Committee on Community Development; Ann Cochrane, San Francisco 
Conservation Corp.; Niesha Brown; Charles Hargraves; JeffNeider, Charity Cultural Service Center; Ed 
Tong, Asian Inc. ; Mauro Tumbocon, West Bay Philipino Multiservice Center; Sam Kwong; Supervisor Daly; 
Olivia Chan; Jennifer Moxley, Bay Area Legal Aid; Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020617 [Grant - HOME Program] 
Mayor 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco to accept and expend a grant from 
the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a total amount of $7,865,000 for the Home 
Program authorized under Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Public Law Number 101- 
625, and approving the Home Program description as described in the 2002 Action Plan for San Francisco's 
Consolidated Plan. Indirect costs associated with the acceptance of these grant funds will be paid by the 
Community Development Block Grant funds. (Mayor) 
4/15/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pamela David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supenisor Peskin; Jon Pon 
(MOCD); Phil Ting, Chair, Advisory Committee on Community Development; Ann Cochrane, San Francisco 
Consen'ation Corp.; Niesha Brown; Charles Hargraves; JeffNeider, Charity Cultural Senice Center; Ed 
Tong, Asian Inc.; Mauro Tumbocon, West Bay Philipino Multiservice Center; Sam Kwong; Supervisor Daly; 
Olivia Chan; Jennifer Moxley, Bay Area Legal Aid; Supervisor Ammiano. 

Amended by placing funds in the amount of $20,000 on reserve. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco to accept and expend a grant from 
the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a total amount of 57,865,000 for the Home 
Program authorized under Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Public Law Number 101- 
625, and approving the Home Program description as described in the 2002 Action Plan for San Francisco's 
Consolidated Plan. Indirect costs associated with the acceptance of these grant funds will be paid by the 
Community Development Block Grant funds; placing $20,000 on reserve. (Mayor) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



77ie meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 5:2t PM on j 2 "-I 



te.a5 



///o* 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 02-0535 



April 25, 2002 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR 3 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
24, 2002. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Ordinance fixing compensation levels for employees 
whose compensation is subject to the provisions of Section 
A8.409 of the Charter, in job classifications not 
represented by an employee organization, and 
establishing working schedules and conditions of 
employment and methods of payment for FY 2002-2003. 

The proposed ordinance would fix compensation levels 
and establish working schedules and conditions of 
employment for 59 classifications identified in 
Attachment I, consisting of a total of 137 employees not 
represented by an employee organization. Of these 137 
employees, 31 are management employees designated as 
Z-class employees 1 and 106 are non-management 
employees. Such compensation levels, working schedules, 
and conditions of employment are set by ordinance 
annually for unrepresented employees. The proposed 



1 Z-class employees are executive, administrative, and professional employees that are exempt from 
overtime requirements under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the terms of the 
existing Compensation Ordinance for unrepresented employees, Z-class employees receive 
compensatory time off at the rate of one hour for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



ordinance is for the one-j'ear period of July 1, 2002 
through June 30, 2003. 

The major changes in the proposed ordinance from FY 
2001-2002 are as follows: 

Wage Rates 

The proposed ordinance would provide wage increases 
totaling 5% over the one-year period to all covered 
employees as follows: 



Effective Date 

July 1, 2002 
January 4, 2003 
Total 



Percent Increase 

2.5 percent 
2.5 percent 
5.0 percent 



According to Ms. Alice Villagomez of DHR, the proposed 5 
percent wage increase is identical to the wage increase for 
miscellaneous employees covered by the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between the City and the 
Municipal Executives Association (ME A) previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Internal Wage Adjustments 

In addition to the total increase of five percent for all 
employees in FY 2002-2003, Class 1283 Director, 
Employee Relations Division 2 would receive an internal 
wage adjustment, effective July 1, 2002, as follows: 









Annual Salary Rate 


Annual Salary 








per Position at Step 


Rate per Position 








Five (including 2.5 


at Step Five, 






Proposed 


percent wage 


including 






Internal 


increase and not 


Proposed 




Number 


Wage 


including Internal 


Irternal Wage 




of 


Adjustment, 


Wage Adjustment), 


Adjustment, 




Positions 


effective July 


effective July 1, 


effective July 1, 


Classification 


in Class 


1, 2002 


2002 3 


2002 


1283 


Director, Employee 












Relations Division 


1 


5% 


$124,399 


$130,619 


AB44 


Confidential Chief 












Attorney II 


4 


10.8% 


$154,576 


$171,270 













2 The Employees Relations Division is a division of the Department of Human Resources. 

3 Employees covered by the proposed ordinance would receive a 2.5 percent wage increase on July 1, 
2002. The total wage increase in FY 2002-2003 is 5.0 percent, including 2.5 percent on July 1, 2002, 
and 2.5 percent on January 4, 2003,. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to Ms. Alice Villagomez of DHR. in March of 

2002, the DHR conducted a market wage stud}' of Labor 
Relations Directors for the City of San Jose, the City of 
Fremont, the City of Oakland, Alameda County, Los 
Angeles County, San Diego County and Santa Clara 
County, as shown in Attachment III. DHR found that the 
salary for the 1283 Director, Employee Relations Division 
was 12 percent below the average of the surveyed cities 
and counties. Ms. Villagomez reports that the subject 
MOU, which includes a 7.5 total increase effective July 1, 
2002 (2.5 percent wage increase, plus 5.0 percent internal 
wage adjustment) and a 2.5 increase effective January 4, 

2003, for a total increase of 10 percent, would provide 
greater market parity for the Director, Employee 
Relations Division. 

Additionally, the proposed ordinance would adjust the 
salary of the four AB44 Confidential Chief Attorney lis to 
be 5 percent above the 8193 Chief Attorney I salary of 
$163,164. According to Ms. Villagomez, class 8193 
received a 7.5 percent internal wage adjustment in the 
MOU between the City and the Municipal Attorney's 
Association (MAA) previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, resulting in class 8193 receiving a higher 
rate of pay than the supervisory Confidential Chief 
Attorney II class. 4 

Severance Pay for Management Employees 
The existing compensation ordinance for unrepresented 
employees does not provide for severance pay. The 
proposed ordinance contains a new provision for 
severance pay for management employees as follows: 

• When a management employee covered by the 
ordinance is involuntarily removed or released from 
employment, such as a layoff, the employee receives 30 
days notice prior to the final day of work, during which 
time they work their regularly scheduled days and 
receive their regular pay. If the management 



•' The annual Step 5 rate of pay for class 8193 Chief Attorney I, effective July 1, 2002, is $163,164, 
which is 5.6 percent greater than the Step 5 rate of pay for class AB44 Confidential Chief Attorney 
II, effective July 1, 2002, of $154,576. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



employee receives less than 30 days notice, the 
employee will be paid severance pay for the difference. 
For example, if the employee receives 15 calendar days 
notice prior to the final day of work, the employee will 
work their regularly scheduled days for 15 days and 
receive their regular rate of pay for the daj's worked. 
In addition, the employee would receive 15 days 
severance pay, totaling 30 calendar days. 

• In addition to the above, when a management 
employee with 10 years or more service to the City is 
involuntarily removed or released from employment, 
the employee shall receive one month's severance pay 
in exchange for a written agreement to not file any 
claims against the City arising under the proposed 
ordinance, including a waiver of any rights the 
employee has to return to City employment. 

• Under the Civil Service rules, a management employee 
who is involuntarily released from his or her position 
(such as a layoff) may have the right to return to a 
permanent position that he or she had held previously. 
Under the proposed ordinance, if the employee elects 
to separate from City Service instead of returning to a 
previously held permanent position, the employee 
would receive one month's severance pay in exchange 
for a written agreement to release any claims against 
the City, including a waiver of any rights the employee 
has to return to City employment. 5 

Ms. Villagomez reports that the proposed severance pay 
provisions for unrepresented management employees are 
identical to the severance pay provisions for the MEA 
MOU for comparable management positions. Ms. 
Villagomez notes that the severance pay provision would 
apply only to the 31 management employees covered by 
the proposed ordinance. As noted in Attachment II, 
provided by the Controller's Office, the Controller is 
unable to make a cost estimate of the proposed severance 
pay provision because the number of employees who will 
qualify for severance pay is unknown. 



5 Under this provision, employees who are terminated involuntarily and who sign a written 
agreement to release claims against the City would receive one month's pay. As noted above, such 
employees would receive additional pay of up to 30 days, if the City gives less than 30 days notice 
prior to the last day of work. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to Ms. Villagomez, by requiring an employee to 
waive all claims against the City in exchange for receiving 
severance pay, this provision would protect the City from 
lawsuits arising from the involuntary release or removal 
from City employment of an employee covered under the 
subject ordinance. Ms. Villagomez states, however, this 
release would not affect claims or rights which the 
employee may have independent of the subject ordinance, 
such as those covered by State or Federal law. 

Ms. Villagomez also states that requiring an individual 
employee to waive the right to return to City employment 
allows the City greater flexibility when filling a vacant 
management position. 

Call Back Provision 

Under the existing ordinance, when a covered employee is 
called back to their work locations after completing the 
workday, the employee is paid for hours actually worked. 
The proposed ordinance would modify the existing call 
back provision by guaranteeing a minimum of four hours 
pay to covered employees called back to work. The Budget 
Analyst notes that under this proposal, employees who 
work less than four hours would receive a minimum of 
four hours pay, resulting in undetermined increased costs 
to the City. Management employees and employees who 
are on stand-by or who work at remote locations where 
City housing is supplied would not be covered by this call 
back provision. 

Health and Welfare and Dental Coverage 
The existing ordinance contains language that requires 
employees, who are covered under the City's health care 
coverage but who are not in active service for more than 
12 weeks, to pay the Health Service System for the full 
premium cost of membership in the Health Service 
System. The proposed ordinance deletes this provision. 
Ms. Villagomez notes that this provision was deleted 
because it is already included in Administrative Code 
Section 16.701. According to Ms. Villagomez, deletion of 
this provision from the proposed ordinance would not 
result in increased costs to the City because this provision 
is included in the Administrative Code and employees 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



would continue to pay the full health care coverage 
premium after 12 weeks of inactive service. 

Tuition Reimbursement 

Under the proposed ordinance, the annual tuition 
reimbursement for classes which enhance an employee's 
work skills would increase from $500 a year to $700 a 
year, an increase of $200 or 40 percent. The total 
allocation for the Tuition Reimbursement Program of 
$10,000 for unrepresented employees would remain 
unchanged from the previous ordinance and all tuition 
reimbursement funds are subject to Board of Supervisors 
appropriation approval. 

Special Educational Leave for Supervising Clinical 
Psychologists 

The proposed ordinance contains a new provision granting 
special educational leave for Supervising Clinical 
Psychologists. Under the proposed ordinance, each 
regular full time or part time 2576 Supervising Clinical 
Psychologist, excluding as-needed employees, would be 
allowed the required number of hours of educational leave 
with pay for re-licensure to attend formally organized 
courses, institutes, workshops or classes to fulfill re- 
licensure requirements. Ms. Villagomez reports that 
clinical psychologists require 32 hours of such training 
biannually to meet re-licensure requirements. According 
to Attachment II, the Controller has not estimated a cost 
for this provision at this time. 

Pilot Wellness Program 

The proposed ordinance contains new language 
establishing a pilot wellness program as an incentive to 
decrease the use of sick leave. Under the pilot wellness 
program, the employee would be able to receive a cash 
payment upon retirement for unused sick leave, based 
upon the employee's salary rate and years of service. The 
program enables covered employees to receive 2.5 percent 
of accrued sick leave credits times the number of whole 
years of continuous years of service times the employee's 
salary rate upon retirement. Under the proposed 
ordinance, the employee could not receive more than 
1,040 hours in such sick leave credits. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comment: As shown in the attached memorandum (Attachment II) 

provided by Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's Office, 
implementing the proposed ordinance would result in 
total estimated additional costs of $678,466 to the City in 
FY 2002-2003. The Budget Analyst concurs with the 
Controller's cost estimate. However, it should be noted 
that the proposed ordinance would result in unknown 
increased costs for severance pay, call back pay, and 
special education leave for Supervising Clinical 
Psychologists. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Attacnaent I 
Page 1 of 2 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 



ATTACHMENT A 

001 = Miscellaneous Unrepresented Jobcodes 

002 = Management Unrepresented Jobcodes 



1 130 Youth Comm Advisor. Bd of Spry 

1 229 Special Examiner 

1437 Shelter Office Asst Supv 

1766 Media Production Tech 

1767 1 767 Media Programming Spec 
1769 Media Production Supv 

1942 Asst Materials Coordinator 

2325 Nurse Midwife 

2561 Optometrist 

2576 Sprv Clincal Psychologist 

2782 Laundry Superintendent 

3238 Dance Instructor 

3246 Pianist 

3248 Technical Inst. Assist. -Pianist 

3376 Animal Care Asst Supv 

3378 Field Svcs Asst Supv 

3438 Tree Topper Supervisor 2 

3650 Medical Records Librarian 

5502 Project Manager 1 

5504 Project Manager 2 

5506 Project Manager 3 

5640 Environmental Spec 

5642 Sr. Environmental Spec 

8168 Parking Hearing Supervisor 

8222 Housing Authority Police Ofc 

8247 Emergency Planning Coordinator 

8263 Crime Lab Mgr 

8282 Sr Environ Control Off 

8446 Court Alternative Specialist 1 

9914 Public Service Aide-Admin 

9916 Public Svc Aide-Public Works 

9920 Publ Svc Aide- Asst to Prof 

9922 PS Aide to Prof 

AB27 Sctrv. Comm on the Environment 

AC24 Secretary to Port Commission 

AC28 Chief Forensic Pathologist 

AC34 Project Analyst 

AC 3 5 Bd/Comm Secretary 3 

1 1 56 Director of Environment 

1 283 Dir Emp Relations Div 

1293 Human Resources Director 



Mayor Willie L. Brown 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



001 
001 
001 
001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

001 

002 

002 

002 



Page : 
4/27C 

i 'ia:>o^\pginst>ur\n»got\neg02-03\unrepftO ( 



Attachment I 
Pa^e 2 of 2 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 



1849 

2142 

2953 

2978 

3234 

5508 

8137 

8232 

9251 

A006 

AB44 

AC27 

AC30 

AC33 

AC36 

AC37 

AC38 

AC39 



Prog Mzr. Bus & Econ Develop 
Reimbursement Msr. CHN 
Chief Deputy Director. DHS 
Contract Compliance Officer 2 
Marina Manager 
Project Manager 4 
Chf Victim/Witness Invstgtor 
Dir of Museum Security Svcs 
Public Relations Mzr 
Parking Bureau Chief 
Cfdntal Chf Am 2.(Cvl&Crmnl) 
Dir. of Airfield Development 
Dir of Museum Security Svcs 
Ethics Coram Executive Director 
Deputy Director Admin Svcs 
Principal Area Manager 
Assistant Superintendent, Rec 
Manager. Marina Operations 



002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 

002 



Mayor Willie L. Brown 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Page 32 



4/2702 



Frca-CCSF CONTROLLED OFFICE +4 i 5-554-7455 Attachment II 

Page 1 of 2 
■J&sffiTW CITY AM) COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROL: 




Edward Harrii 
Cont 



April 11,2002 

Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 

Board of Supervisors 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodleit Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: File Number 020535 

Ordinance Fixing Compensation for Unrepresented Employees for the Period July 1, 2002 
through June 30, 2003 

Dear Ms. Young, 

Li accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am subrouting a cost analysis of the Ordinance Fixing 
Compensation for Unrepresented Employees. The Ordinance covers the period of July 1, 2002 through 
June 30, 2003, and affects 133 budgeted positions with an overall pay and benefits base of 
approximately SI 0.5 million and a salary base of approximately $9.1 million. 

Based on our analysis, the Ordinance will result in incremental costs of approximately $678,000 in 
FY 2002-2003. The Ordinance will result in cost increases of approximately 6.5% above the overall pay 
and benefits base (approximately 7.5% above base salaries) in FY 2002-2003. Please see Attachment A 
for specific cost estimates. 

In addition to the wage and benefit provisions in Attachment A, the Ordinance provides for special 
educational leave for jobcode 2576 Supervising Clinical Psychologist. This provision may result in 
overtime costs for those employees who are backfilled and in lost productivity for non-backfilled 
employees; however, we have not estimated a cost for this provision at this time. Also, the Ordinance 
provides for a one-month severance pay as a result of an involuntary separation or a change of status from 
exempt to permanent status for management unrepresented employees with exempt status. Since it is 
unknown how many employees will qualify for this pay, we do not have an estimate cost at this time. In 
addition, if the City chooses to make Cesar Chavez day a paid holiday during the upcoming fiscal year, 
there may be additional overtime and lost productivity costs for the unrepresented employees. 

If you have any additional questions or concerns please contact me at 554-7500 ov Pamela Levin of my 
staff at 554-7554. 



Sincerely, 




Edward M. Harrington 
Controller 

cc: Alice Villagomez, ERD 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

4I5-5&4-7500 Cily Dull • 1 Or. Carliou It. Goodlci! Ploct - noom 316 -San Tranclsco CA94I02-IC9-I FAX 4 15-: 

cp=_ 1 1-2002 15:2- +415 55- 74to 10 S3>! P. 02 



Apr-1 1-02 02 : Q7pra Froa-CCSF CGN7ROLLE3 OrrlCH +41 S-554-7465 Attachment II 

. [ • Page 2 of 2 



Attachment A 
Unrepresented Employees 
Estimated Costs FY 2002-2003 
Controller's Office 

Annual Coats/fSavinqs) F'f 2002-2003 

Wage Increase 

2.5% on July 1, 2002, 2.5% on January 4, 2003 $431,559 



Wage Adjustments 

Jobccde 1283 Director, Employee Relations Division 6,298 

5% Increase effective 7/1/02 

Special wage differential - AB44 (5% above 8193) 67,820 

Jobcocie AB44 Confidential Chief Attorney II 
Jobcoda 8193 Chief Attorney I (Civil and Criminal) 

Pilot Wellness Program 1 

2.5% of Accrued Sick Leave Effective July 1 , 2002 95,673 

Wage-Related Fringe Increases 77,116 

Total Estimated Incremental Costs S678.466 

Incremental Cost % of 2001-2002 Total Pay & Benefits 6.5% 

Incremental Cost % of Base Salary 7.5% 



1 According :o Controller's Office analysis, there are a total of 10 eligible retirees by the end of FY03. Our 
costing 's based on the assumption that only 2 out of the 10 eligible employees will retire In FY03 



11 



Attachment III 





~ co 




GO 




73 > 




w 


GO 


— 


> 


a 


O 


O B8BHB8S 






a "n 




eg 




0) < 




CJ 


CJ 


> 


5 

CD 












3 




ff" o 




CJ 


3 


o 

c 


< •< r ..- - 




> ° 

< 5 

" 3 
Q. 




-n 




V) fil 




3 


D 


o 


c^ 


o as&I^CIsS 






o 

(A 




(0 

o 




n 
3 


to" 

O 

n 




D. 

O 
o 


O 

CJ 
CJ 


3 

5 


^ IMrVy Wliii 
t— IUPkSSek 






o 




2 




n 


o 






- 


c 
cc_ 


O KKSSffi 






O 




01 













CL 


en S9ffS**35*iJ 




o 








X 
















cd iSSSJsSS 








£k 




en 




Ol 


Ol 


en 


-ex 


•fc. 


J^ 


CD tS-^S^S 






NJ 




a> 




CO 




OJ 


CO 


en 


en 


CD 


en 


"-J £3±tSS«? 








CJ1 








ro 


o> 


CO 


ro 


CD 


CO 


to SsSgagtS 






o? 




° 


ro 




en 


o 


■>l 


en 


M 


-* 


~* RfltBrHwEF 










^j 








;>l 


to 


o 


p 


-^ 


o 


~ kS£^§111 










bi 








o 


bi 


b 


o 


O 


o 


c SSsSbI 










o 








o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o H&Sss 










5? 








5? 


5? 


5? 


o^ 


gj? 


5? 


t^^jg 










-L. 




en 




—J 


en 


Ol 


-Ji. 


-&• 


jj. 


Z fesg^SpcIt 






to 


to 




*. 




o 


co 


Ol 


OJ 


co 


cn 


- J KSgflraSS 






to 




OD 






CD 


eo 


r*j 


CD 


CO 


ec ikSjI'sPw* 




^ 


CO 




co 




CO 


to 


■>! 


CO 


CO 


- L 


— ^45& 


1 



pa 
o 



or 

o 

o' 



o I 

o £ 
to o 

»— • 

C! 

CD 



12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 02-0475 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



City Attorney 

Ordinance appropriating $508,673 from Code 
Enforcement Settlement proceeds pertaining to Fire Code 
violations at 351 California Street and $442,741 from the 
Reserve for the Hanlon Arbitration Award, for a total of 
$951,414, for the Affirmative Litigation Program in the 
City Attorney's Office. 

$951,414 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Code Enforcement Settlement 

(see Comment No. 1) 
Reserve for Hanlon Arbitration Award 

(see Comment No. 2) 
Total 



Amount 

$508,673 

442.741 
$951,414 



The $951,414 would be expended by the City Attorney for 
the following Affirmative Litigation Program issue areas: 

• $122,645 for Energy Litigation, including $37,253 for 
the Energy Producers Lawsuit and $85,392 for the 
Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate parent Lawsuit; 

• $30,707 for litigation pertaining to lead paint 
manufacturers; 

• $426,092 related to the Pacific Gas & Electric 
bankruptcy and reorganization proceedings; 

• $371,970 for Gun Litigation. 

Attachment I is a memorandum from Mr. Kimon 
Manolius of the City Attorney's Office explaining the 
nature of the above-listed Affirmative Litigation matters. 

According to Ms. Martie Moore of the City Attorney's 
Office, the FY 2001-2002 budget, as previously approved 
by the Board of Supervisors, funded only six months, or 
$950,000 from July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 for the 
City Attorney's Affirmative Litigation Program, pending 
election of a new City Attorney, in order to allow a new 
City Attorney to review the program, establish 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Proposed Budget: 



affirmative litigation priorities and then request a 
supplemental appropriation to fund those priorities. 

The requested supplemental appropriation of S951.414 for 
the City Attorney's Affirmative Litigation Program would 
be expended as follows: 

Amount 
Energy Litigation 
City Attorney Personnel 

- Energy Producers Lawsuit $37,253 
City Attorney Personnel 

- Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. Lawsuit 85,392 
Subtotal Energy Litigation $122,645 

Lead Paint Litigation 

City Attorney Personnel 30,707 

Pacific Gas & Electrics Bankruptcy 

City Attorney Personnel 196,092 

Outside Counsel 220,000 

Miscellaneous Expenses 10,000 
Subtotal Pacific Gas & Electrics Bankruptcy $426,092 

Gun Litigation 

City Attorney Personnel 315,245 

City Share of Group Costs 52,000 

City Cost for Depositions 4,000 

Miscellaneous Expenses 725 

Subtotal Gun Litigation $371,970 



Total 



$951,414 



Comments: 



Attachment II to this report provides budget details for 
for the proposed $951,414 in expenditures summarized 
above regarding City Attorney personnel, including hours 
and hourly rates, and Outside Counsel and other 
Expenses. 

1. Ms. Moore reports that the Code Enforcement 
Settlement of $508,673 was paid to the City by the 
property owner at 351 California Street for penalties for 
Fire Code violations. Therefore, Ms. Moore states, the 
City Attorney proposes using the $508,673 in settlement 
monies for the City Attorney's Affirmative Litigation 
Program. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. The Hanlon Arbitration Award granted salary 
increases for Municipal Attorney Association personnel as 
part of the Municipal Attorney Association Memorandum 
of Understanding previously approved bj r the Board of 
Supervisors for the two year period July 1, 2001 to June 
30, 2003. According to Mr. Ben Rosenfield : the Mayor's 
Budget Director, $2.3 million was appropriated in the FY 
2001-2002 budget as a designated reserve for Municipal 
Attorney Association salary increases. Mr. Rosenfield 
further states that $900,000 of the $2.3 million reserve 
was designated for the estimated costs of the salary 
increases for attorneys in the City Attorney's Office in 
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding 
between the Municipal Attorneys Association and the 
City for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Mr. Rosenfield reports 
that the City Attorney's Office was able to absorb all of 
the FY 2001-2002 salary increases in the City Attorney's 
FY 2001-2002 budget. Therefore, the City Attorney is 
requesting $442,741 of the $900,000 portion of the Hanlon 
reserve set aside for the City Attorney's Office for FY 
2001-2002 for salary increases. 

3. According to Mr. Manolius, the City Attorney's Office 
has already expended $426,063 of this subject request of 
$951,414 as of March 31, 2002. Mr. Manolius states that 
the City Attorney's Office expended such funds prior to 
receiving Board of Supervisors approval of this subject 
request because, as stated in Attachment III, "The Mayor 
and the Board of Supervisors always contemplated 
funding the Affirmative Litigation Program for the second 
half of the fiscal year." 

4. Attachment IV, provided by the City Attorney's Office 
contains expenditures totaling $1,376,063 for the City 
Attorney's Affirmative Litigation Program for FY 2001- 
2002 through March 31, 2002, including an amount of 
$950,000 which was previously appropriated by the Board 
of Supervisors in the City Attorney's FY 2001-2002 
budget and the additional $426,063 already expended 
from this subject request of $951,414. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

5. As a result of the City Attorney's Office having 
expended $426,063 of the subject request for the 
Affirmative Litigation Program without first obtaining 
Board of Supervisors approval, such expenditures are 
retroactive. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 

ordinance to provide for retroactivity, in accordance with 
Comment No. 5 above. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
16 



City and County of San Francisco 

i^Hii^x Dennis J. Herrera 
City Attorney 




Page I of: 3~ 

Office of the City Attorney 
kimon manolius 

Chief Counsel 

Direct Dial: (415)55^-6708 
E-Mail kimon_mancnusiiici.sf.ca. us 

April 25, 2002 



TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 
RE: 



HARVEY ROSE 
Budget Analyst 

KIMON MANOLIL 
Chief Counsel 




April 25, 2002 

SupplementaLAppropriation for Affirmative Litigation for Jan. 1 to June 30, 2002: 
Issues and Objectives for Affirmative Litigation requested by Ms. Graham. 



Sarah Graham asked that I provide you with a memorandum explaining the issues and 
objectives for specific affirmative litigation matters encompassed in our Supplemental 
Appropriation request for Affirmative Litigation for the time period January 1 to June 30, 2002. 
Below you will find a brief narrative on each matter. 

Energy Litigation 

San Francisco sued PG&E Corporation in February 2002, charging it with engaging in 
unfair and illegal business practices that drove its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 
into bankruptcy. The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, asks PG&E Corp. to return as 
much as $5 billion to ratepayers, including S4.6 billion in illegally paid dividends and stock 
purchases and S663 million in inflated tax payments made by the utility to its parent. It also seeks 
penalties. The suit follows a similar action filed in January 2002 by California Attorney General 
Bill Lockyer. 

Energy Producers Litigation 

San Francisco also continues to prosecute its lawsuit against 1 3 companies that produce 
California's energy supply, charging that they artificially manipulated supplies to keep prices 
high. The suit, filed in January 2001, and since joined by the city of Oakland, is pending in San 
Diego Superior Court. It charges the companies with violating the California Unfair Competition 
Act by conspiring to restrict supplies and drive up prices. It seeks a hah to anti-competitive 
behavior and the return of up to $1 billion in illegal profits to consumers. 

/// 



City Hall. = 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place. Room 234 • San Francisco. California 94 1 C2-5408 
Reception: (415) 554-4700 • Facsimile: (415)554-4715 



1 7 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 

Office of the City Attorney 



Memorandum to Harvey Rose 

Page 2 

April 25, 2002 



PG&E Bankruptcy 



In addition to these two energy lawsuits, San Francisco has taken a leading role in 
coordinating the response of local governments statewide to the PG&E bankruptcy. Our deputy 
city attorneys have been involved in briefing the court both orally and in writing on the legal 
rights of public entities and in negotiating coordinated legal action with other municipalities. 

The PG&E matter is a complex bankruptcy matter in which the City has a variety of 
interests that our office seeks to protect. In addition to its interests as a power supplier, the City is 
a creditor in that it collects property, utility user, and business taxes from PG&E. The City also 
has contractual relationships with PG&E such as franchise agreements, agreements for 
undergrounding, and numerous indemnification agreements. Finally, the City must participate 
actively in the bankruptcy to ensure that the citizens and consumers of San Francisco are 
protected and pay appropriate rates for their power. 

Lead Paint Litigation 

San Francisco continues to prosecute its case against lead paint manufacturers. San 
Francisco and Oakland joined this Santa Clara County lawsuit in January 2001. The suit calls 
lead poisoning a "preventable epidemic" in which thousands of Bay Area children are struck 
every year with brain damage and physical deformities as a result of lead poisoning. It charges 
eight lead paint manufacturers and an industry trade group with fraud and negligence in violation 
of state product liability law. Paint manufacturers have known as early as 1904 about the dangers 
associated with lead paint and have deliberately hidden that knowledge. San Francisco seeks 
money to clean up public property as well as a court order requiring the companies to correct 
existing hazards and to issue safety warnings to consumers. Santa Cruz, Solano, and Alameda 
counties have also joined Santa Clara, San Francisco, and Oakland as plaintiffs. 

Gun Litigation 

San Francisco continues to prosecute its lawsuit against the gun industry. Filed in May 
1999, the lawsuit charges handgun makers with unfair and deceptive business practices including 
promoting illegal sales intended to put guns in the hands of criminals. Joining San Francisco in 
the suit are Sacramento, Oakland, Berkeley, and the counties of Alameda and San Mateo. In a 
coordinated statewide action, Los Angeles filed a similar suit joined by the cities of Compton and 
West Hollywood. 

The purpose of the suit is to compel gun makers to share responsibility for protecting the 
public health from the unsafe use of handguns and assault weapons much as every other industry, 
from aspirin makers to car companies, is legally obligated to do. The suit names three industry 



18 



^\ADMiNS\CviA.-s.Cj'JS3UOGn\BurXiri3 ITS 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3 

Office of the City Attorney 



Memorandum to Harvey Rose 

Page 3 

April 25, 2002 



trade associations, 28 gun manufacturers, and seven distributors based in the United States and 
abroad. It charges the defendants with the following counts: 

• Creating an illegal secondary market for gun purchases, 

• Designing guns to appeal to criminals. 

• Increasing production to meet illegal demand, 

• Evading federal and state gun control legislation, 

• Manufacturing and selling defective and unsafe guns, and 

• Making false claims about the safety of their product. 

The suit seeks a court order directing the industry to correct unlawful and unsafe business 
practices and to pay penalties. It also asks the court to direct manufacturers to incorporate safety 
features into gun design to prevent the unauthorized use of guns stemming the flow of weapons 
into the illegal market. 



If you have any further questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to 
contact me at (415) 554-6708. Your assistance on these matters is most appreciated. 



19 



\»0~"NS .l»«%C-.-JMUOGPMuOCPJ ill 



Attachment 11 
Page 1 of 4 



City Attorney 

Affirmative Litigation Supplemental Budget 

Energy Litigation 

FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) 



Energy Producer Lawsuit 



1/1/02 to 3/1/02 (9 wks) 


■ Status 


; Conference 3/4/02 




Cls-Stp 


% FT 


Hrs 


Rate Amt 




8180-5 


5% 


16.2 


S 182 $ 2.948 




8180-5 


5% 


16.2 


$ 182 S 2,948 




8181-5 


5% 


16.2 


$ 194 S 3,143 


S 9,040 


3/4/02 to 6/30/02 (17 wks) - brie 


jfmg & hearings 




Cls-Stp 


%FT 


Hrs 


Rate Amt 




8180-5 


10% 


61.2 


$ 182 S 11,138 




8180-5 


10% 


61.2 


$ 182 $ 11,138 




8181-5 


5% 


30.6 


$ 194 $ 5,936 


S 28,213 



Estimate for FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) $ 37,253 

Note: Stays and procedural matters slowed litigation in FY 2002 

PG&E Corp Lawsuit 

271 102 to 6/30/02 (20 wks) 



Cls-Stp 


% FT 


Hrs 


Rate 


Amt 


8176-5 


40% 


288.0 


$ 157 


S 45,216 


8180-5 


20% 


144.0 


$ 182 


$ 26,208 


8181-5 


10% 


72.0 


$ 194 


S 13,968 



Estimate for FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) S 85,392 



Source: City Attorney's Office 



20 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 4 



City Attorney 

Affirmative Litigation Supplemental Budget 

Lead Paint Litigation Budget 

FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) 

Cls-Stp % FT Hrs Rate Amt 



8178-6 


10% 


93.60 


S 159.15 


S 


14,896 


8176-6 


5% 


46.80 


$ 153.34 


s 


7,176 


8181-5 


5% 


46.80 


S 184.49 


s 


8,634 



30,707 



21 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of A 



City Attorney 

Affirmative Litigation Supplemental Budget 

PGE Bankruptcy Budget 

FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) 



1/1/02 to 6/30/02 



Class 
8180-5 
8180-5 
8180-5 

8180-6 



% Time 
40% 
40% 
25% 
10% 



Hours 

374.40 S 

374.40 S 

234.00 S 

93.60 S 



Rate 



Amount 



182 S 68,141 

182 S 68,141 

182 S 42,588 

184 S 17,222 



$196,092 



Outside Counsel 

Sulmeyer Kupetz (500 hrs @ S295) $147,500 

James Mori & Assoc (144 hrs @ $195) $28,080 

County Counsel share $ 44,420 



$220,000 



Expenses (record copying, court fees, messengers, 

expense reimbursement for travel to hearings) 



$ 10,000 



Estimate for FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) 



S426.092 



22 



Attachment II 
Page A oT 5 



City Attorney 

Affirmative Litigation Supplemental Budget 

Gun Litigation Budget 

FY 2002 (Janauary 1 - June 30) 

Estimate 1/1/02 to 6/30/02 

% Time Hours Rate Amount 

8181-5 20% 187.2 S194 336,317 



8178-6 


25% 


234.0 


S170 


$39,780 




8180-5 


65% 


608.4 


S182 


S1 10,729 




8178-6 


10% 


93.6 


S170 


$15,912 




8151-4 


70% 


655.2 


S126 


$82,555 




8151-5 


25% 


234.0 


S128 


S29.952 


S31 5,245 



City Share of group costs 

(experts, document production, 
deposition transcripts, database 
and document management, etc.) $52,000 

City cost for depos $4,000 

City cost - copies, misc. $725 $56,725 

Estimate for FY 2002 (January 1 - June 30) $371 ,970 



23 



ittachment III 



City and County of San Francisco 

Dennis J. Herrera 
City Attorney 




Office of the City Attorney 

kimon manouus 
Chief Counsel 

DirectDial: (415) 55--6708 
E-Mail: kimon_mancuus@ci.sf.co.us 

April 25, 2002 



TO: 



FROM: 



DATE: 



RE: 



HARVEY ROSE 
Budget Analyst 

KIMON MANOUUS / W})/1 
Chief Counsel /)/' 

April 25, 2002 

City Attorney's Supplemental Appropriation Request for Affirmative Litigation 
for January 1 to June 30, 2002. 




The purpose of this memorandum is to address Sarah Graham's request for a 
memorandum explaining the timing of the City Attorney's Supplemental Appropriation Request 
for Affirmative Litigation for the period January 1 to June 30, 2002. 

As you know, in last year's budget process, the Mayor's Office recommended and the 
Board of Supervisors funded the City Attorney's Affirmative Litigation Program for only the first 
six months of the fiscal year through December 31, 2001. With Louise H. Renne's departure, the 
Mayor's Office expressed its desire for the City Attorney's Office to make a supplemental budget 
request for the remainder of the fiscal year after the new City Attorney took office. The Board of 
Supervisors funded the City Attorney's Affirmative Litigation initiative in the amount of 
5950,000 for the time period July 1 , 200 1 through December 31,2001. 

The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors always contemplated funding the Affirmative 
Litigation Program for the second half of the fiscal year. They anticipated our submission of 
Supplemental Appropriation Request to fund ongoing affirmative litigation matters such as the 
suits against PG&E, against other energy producers, against the gun industry, and the City's 
participation in PG&E's bankruptcy. 

The new City Attorney took office on January 9, 2002. With the help of the Mayor's 
Office, we prepared the supplemental request that both the Mayor and the Board anticipated. 
The City Attorney's Office submitted that request to the Mayor's Office on February 19, 2002. 

If you have any further questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to 
contact me at (415) 554-6708. Your assistance on these matters is most appreciated. 



CiiyHa_. si Dr. Carlton B. GooDLETi Place. Room 234- San Francisco. California 941 02-5408 
Reception: (41 5) 554-4700 ■ Facsimile: (415)554-4715 



24 



l_dl_LlLUCl.l l_ J. V 



CJ 

3 CM 

.-= O 

CJ g T- 

o g- co 

5 uj ° 

O ' « 5 



H 



5 OJ 
J O 
3 O 


CO 
CN 


o 

CO 


in 

CO 

o 


CD 




rsi 


o 


> fe^ 


«/> 


«/» 


f& 


? CM 

i m 

CO 


en 
CM 


CM 


CO 

en 


si in 


O 


CM 
O 
CM 


m 
co 

CM 


» w» 


fa^ 


t/» 


</» 


o 
o 
m 




O 

o 
o 


o 
o 
m 


CM 
CO 




o 

CD 


CM 

en 










</» 




</» 


</> 


234 


r-- 

CO 


CO 

to 

CO 


o 
o 
in 


- en 


r— 

CM 


en 
m 


r— 
in 


f* v> 


<J> 


v> 


*fir 



in co en 



<&<&*& 



< 



s •*- - '" 
rr 



cm co in 

CO CD CM 



«*■* fa** t/9- 



o o o 



CO 1- 



CO *- 



*- CO 



91 
CJ 
•H 
M-l 

O 



i~- i- 



v> t^> «/> 



01 

c 
u 
o 



co en cr> 



■H 

u 



SS5 

o ^_ c 



O c = 

en uj 
5. O 



en 



co >, O - 

2 Q C LU 



c5 

UJ 



o 
o 



CN 



a 



C3 



QJ 

U 
U 

:• 
: 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 02-0468 

Department: Department of Human Resources 

Item: Ordinance adopting and implementing Amendment No. 4 

to the FY 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement 
between the City and County of San Francisco and the 
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Locals 
250, 535 and 790 by amending Article IV.D (Additional 
Compensation and Premium Pay) to provide for POST 
Premium pay for employees assigned to classification 
2580 (Medical Examiner Investigator). 

Description: In June of 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a 

MOU (File 00-0991) with the Service Employees 
International Union (SEIU) Locals 250, 535 and 790, for 
the three-year period from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 
2003. The existing MOU covers 431 classifications 
comprising a total of 11,082 employees. 

The proposed ordinance would be an amendment to the 
existing MOU and, if approved, would take effect July 1, 
2002. The subject amendment would affect 12 budgeted 
positions by inserting a new provision to provide for 
premium pa5 r for 2580 Medical Examiner Investigators 
who hold an intermediate or advanced Peace Officers 
Standards and Training (POST) certificate. As noted in 
the attached memorandum (Attachment I), provided by 
Ms. Alice Villagomez of the Department of Human 
Resources (DHR), the POST certificate is a State 
accredited educational and training program for peace 
officers. Ms. Villagomez states that 2580 Medical 
Examiner Investigators hold peace officer status and, 
similar to other peace officer status employees within the 
City, are encouraged to secure additional education and 
training accredited by POST. Such employees that hold 
an intermediate POST certificate would receive a four 
percent premium. Employees holding an advanced POST 
certificate would receive a six percent premium. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



The proposed ordinance, which would take effect July 1, 
2002, would provide premium pay as follows: 



POST 

Certificate 

Intermediate 
Advanced 



POST Premium 

(Above Base Pay) 

4% 

6% 



Annual Salary Rate per 

Position at Step Five, 

effective July 1, 2002 

$70,694 

$70,694 



Annual Salary Rate 
per Position at Step 

Five, including 
Proposed Premium 

Pay Adjustment, 

effective July 1. 2002 

$73,522 

$74,936 



According to Ms. Villagomez, an employee with an 
advanced POST certificate cannot also receive a four 
percent pay premium for an intermediate POST 
certificate. 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



1. According to Ms. Villagomez, the subject amendment 
to the existing MOU is proposed in order to recruit and 
retain experienced and knowledgeable staff. Ms. 
Villagomez reports that the subject amendment is similar 
to POST premium pay provisions in the District Attorney 
Investigators Association MOU, the Deputy Sheriffs 
Association MOU and the Municipal Executives' 
Association (ME A) MOU. 

2. As shown in the attached memorandum (Attachment 
II), provided by Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's 
Office, implementing the proposed ordinance will result in 
approximately $58,400 of incremental costs to the City in 
FY 2002-2003, which is the last year of the existing three- 
year MOU between the City and the SEIU, Locals 250, 
535 and 790. The Controller's cost estimate is based on 
the assumption that all 12 budgeted 25S0 Medical 
Examiner Investigators would qualify for the six percent 
POST Premium. Ms. Villagomez advises that the City will 
negotiate a new MOU with SEIU, Locals 250. 535 and 790 
during FY 2002-2003 and it is anticipated that the subject 
POST premium would be included in future MOUs. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

27 



City and County of San Francisco 




Accacnment l 



Page 1 of 1 
Department of Human Resources 



ANDREA R. GOUROINE 
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR 



April 17,2002 

TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget .Analyst 

FROM: Alice Villagomez 

Deputy Director, ERD 




RE: SEIU MOU Amendment No. 4 



SEIU MOU Amendment No. 4, effective July 1, 2002, extends to employees in Class 
25S0 Medical Examiner Investigator an additional premium of 4% and 6% respectively, 
for possession of an intermediate and or advanced POST certificate. 

Class 2580 employees hold peace officer status and similar to other peace officer status 
employees within the City are encouraged to secure additional education and training 
accredited by the State's Peace Officers Standards and Training Program. The City 
already extends this additional premium to District Attorney Investigators and to Deputy 
Sheriffs. 

The Medical Examiner has recommended this premium based on the specialized skills 
and nature of the assignments of the medical examiner investigators within San Francisco 
and in order to recruit and retain experienced and knowledgeable staff. 

Unless, otherwise negotiated differently, this premium is likely to continue in future 
MOUs. 

The Medical Examiner advises that funds have been identified in the Department's 
budget to fund the cost of this additional premium. 



cc: Dr. Boyd Stephens, Medical Examiner 



O) Gough Stroet • San Francisco, CA 94103-1223 



hFP- 19-2302 11 : 



I155574319 



28 



Attachment II 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO * g& OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER 

Edward Harrington 
Controller 



April 5, 2002 

Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 

Board of Supervisors 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Re: File Number 020468 

Amendment No. 4 to the 2000 - 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Service 
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Locals 250, 535 and 790 

Dear Ms. Young: 

In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of an amendment to the 2000 - 
2003 Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County of San Francisco and the Service 
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Locals 250, 535 and 790. Amendment No. 4 covers the 
period of the current MOU, July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003, and affects 12 budgeted positions with 
an overall salary base of approximately $816,000. 

The amendment provides for POST and/or Educational Premium pay for employees assigned to 
classification 2580 (Medical Examiner Investigator) by amending Article TV.D, Additional 
Compensation and Premium Pay. According to our analysis, the amendment will result in an 
incremental cost of approximately $58,400 in FY 2002-2003. The amendment will result in a cost 
increase of approximately 6.9% above base salary in FY 2002-2003. Our analysis is based on the 
assumption that all employees under classification 2580 qualify for the maximum premium of 6%. 
However, the actual number of employees who qualify for the 6% premium could be lower which may 
result in an incremental cost lower than our current estimate. Please see Attachment A for specific cost 
estimates. 

If you have any additional questions or concerns please contact me at 554-7500 or Pamela Levin of my 

staff at 554-7554. 



Sincerely, 




Edward M. Harrington 
Controller 

cc: Alice Villagomez, ERD 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



29 

4 "554-7500 Citv Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton P.. Goi.cllcti Place • Room 316 -San Francisco C.\ <>410:-4694 I \\ 4I5-554-746 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



Attachment A 

SEIU Locals 250, 535 and 790 - Amendment No. 4 to 2000-2003 MOU 

Estimated Costs FY 2002-2003 

Controller's Office 



Annual Costs/(Savinqs) FY 2002-2003 

Additional Compensation and Premium Pay 

Classification 2580 Medical Examiner Investigator 

POST and/or Educational Premium Pay " 50,669 

Wage-Related Fringe Increases 7,727 

Total Estimated Incremental Costs $58,396 



Incremental Cost % of Salary Base 6.9% 



Assuming all employees assigned to Classification 2580 qualify for 6% premium. 



30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 02-0486 



Department: 
Item: 



Department of Elections 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for $2,167,924 from 
the General Fund Reserve to fund other current expenses, 
materials and supplies and equipment for the Department 

of Elections. 



Amount and 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 



Description: 



$2,167,924 General Fund Reserve 

Professional and Specialized Services Contracts $226,641 

Maintenance - Buildings & Improvements 3,279 

Maintenance Equipment Contract 228,393 

Rents & Leases - Bldgs & Structures 47,157 

Rents & Leases - Equipment 269,431 

Other Current Expenses 861,159 

Judgements - Legal Fees 11,652 

Taxes, Licenses and Permits 1,347 

Materials and Supplies 52,433 

Equipment Loan Payment 374,767 

Interdepartmental Recoveries 91,665 
Total S2, 167,924 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request for 
$2,167,924 would appropriate additional General Fund 
Reserve funds for the Department of Elections to cover 
various non-personnel expenses. As shown above in the 
Budget, the total requested $2,167,924 of additional funds 
would be used for various contracts, maintenance, leases, 
equipment, materials and supplies and various other 
current expenses. In general, these additional expenses 
were incurred by the Department of Elections due to (a) 
greater than anticipated expenses in the November of 2001 
election, (b) a December of 2001 run-off election 1 for the 
City Attorney's Office for which funds were not included in 
the FY 2001-2002 budget (c) additional expenses resulting 
from Proposition E, which included the establishment of a 



1 See Attachment I which identifies $1,947,834 of costs associated with the December of 2001 City 
Attorney run-off election. Of the total $1,947,834, an estimated $1,141,926 was for personnel 
expenses, which were funded through the previous supplemental appropriation (File 02-0248) and an 
estimated $805,908 was for non-personnel related expenses, which is the subject of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meetinj 



new Elections Commission to oversee the Department of 
Elections and which was approved in November of 2001, 
and (d) greater than anticipated expenses in the March 5, 
2002 election. 

On March 20, 2002, the Finance Committee heard a 
$5,658,870 supplemental appropriation request from the 
Department of Elections (File 02-0248). At that time, the 
Finance Committee divided the subject request into 
personnel expenses ($3,490,946) and non-personnel 
expenses ($2,167,924). The Finance Committee then 
reduced the requested $3,490,946 portion of the personnel 
expenses for Temporary Salaries and related fringe benefits 
by $318,939 and approved a supplemental appropriation of 
$3,172,007 for personnel-related expenses for the Elections 
Department. The remaining $2,167,924 of the 
supplemental appropriation that related to non-personnel 
expenses, is now being requested in the subject File 02- 
0486. 

Specifically, the Department is requesting the following: 

Professional and Specialized Services Contracts 
($226,641) 

As previously reported, the Department has expended 
$329,176 of the budgeted $377,408 for professional and 
specialized services. However, the Department anticipates 
incurring a total of $604,049 for such expenses during the 
current fiscal year, which is $226,641, or 60 percent more 
than the amount budgeted. 





Actual 


Total 






Expenses 


Projected 


Projected 




(thru 


Expenses 


Surplus 


Budget 


2/15/02) 


(thru 6/30/02) 


(Deficit) 


$377,408 


$329,176 


$604,049 


$226,641 



According to Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of 
Administrative Services, the additional $226,641 results 
primarily from (a) three contracts for a total of 8120,000 for 
public relations and communication services and (b) one 
contract for a total of approximately $100,000 for an 
elections consultant to assist the Department. Therefore a 
total of $220,000 of public relations and consulting 
contracts were awarded. The three public relations and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

communications consultant contracts, their contractual 
dates, hourly rates, and total estimated costs are: (1) 
Melissa A. Mooney dba M2PR, hired from October 15, 2001 
through November 15, 2001, at a rate of $125 per hour for a 
total of 140 hours, plus additional charges, for a total of up 
to $20,000; (2) Cynthia A. MacKenzie, hired from 
November 19, 2001 through March 31, 2002, at a rate of 
$140 per hour for a total of 320 hours, plus additional 
charges, for a total of up to $50,000; and (3) MacKenzie 
Communications, Inc., hired from November 30, 2001 
through March 31, 2002, at a rate of $225 per hour for a 
total of 200 hours, plus additional charges for a total of up 
to $50,000. Additionally, Mr. Minasian advises that in 
August of 2001, the Chief Administrative Officer hired Mr. 
Bill Jackson, who is retired from the San Mateo County 
Department of Elections, as a technical elections consultant 
to assist the Department at a maximum cost of $100,000. 
According to Mr. Minasian, to date, Mr. Jackson has been 
paid $84,000 and has submitted invoices for the remaining 
$16,000 (see Comment No. 2). 

Maintenance - Buildings & Improvements (S3. 279) 

The Department did not budget any funds in FY 2001-2002 
for the building and improvement maintenance services. 
Mr. Minasian advises that the requested $3,279 is for the 
costs to pay for maintenance of the elevator at 240 Van 
Ness Avenue, a City-owned approximately 5,000 square 
foot space the Department of Elections has been using on a 
temporary basis since October of 2001. The Department is 
not currently paying any lease costs for this space. 

Maintenance - Equipment ($228,393) 

The Department already budgeted the necessary $228,393 
to pay for the Department's Elections Systems and 
Software, Inc. (ES&S) maintenance contract services in FY 
2001-2002. However, Mr. Minasian advises that the 
previously budgeted $228,393 for the ES&S equipment 
maintenance services was instead spent for additional 
Other Current Expenses (see below), resulting in 
insufficient funds to pay the necessary $228,393 for the 
equipment maintenance contract with ES&S. 

Rents & Leases - Bldgs & Structures ($47.157) 

As shown below, the Department has already expended 
$63,811, or $13,811 more than the $50,000 budgeted for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



entire fiscal year for rents and leases. However, the 
Department anticipates incurring a total of $97,157 for 
such expenses, which is $47,157, or 94 percent more than 
budgeted. 





Actual 


Total 






Expenses 


Projected 


Projected 




(thru 


Expenses 


Surplus 


Budget 


2/15/02) 


(thru 6/30/02) 


(Deficit) 


$50,000 


$63,811 


$97,157 


$47,157 



Mr. Minasian advises that these additional rental expenses 
were incurred due to (a) carryforward costs of $6,000 from 
the November and December of 2000 election costs for Pier 
45, (b) carryforward costs of $8,376 from the November and 
December of 2000 elections to rent polling places from the 
San Francisco Unified School District, (c) $6,800 for 
additional training classes at the Community College 
District, (d) a rent increase of $228 per month for seven 
months for the Pier 29 facility, or an additional $1,596 and 
(e) miscellaneous additional polling place rental fees (see 
Comment No. 4). 

Rents & Leases - Equipment ($269,431) 

As shown in Attachment II, the Department did not include 
specific budgeted funds for equipment rents and leases in 
their FY 2001-2002 budget, although through February 15, 
2002, the Department reported expending $114,831 for 
equipment rentals, of which an estimated $33,438 was a 
result of the December of 2001 City Attorney runoff 
election, as itemized below. As also itemized below, the 
Department anticipated expending an additional $154,600 
for equipment rents and leases as a result of the March 5, 
2002 election, including $115,000 for vehicle rentals for the 
March, 2002 election, as follows: 





December 2001 


March, 2002 




Run-i 


aff Election 


Election 


Vehicle Rentals 


$6,740 


$115,000 


Lighting 




4,875 


2,200 


Restrooms 




11,548 


10,400 


Tents 




10,275 


10,000 


Computers 







9,000 


Eagles 







8.000 


Total 




$33,438 


$154,600 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 





BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Together, the already expended $114,831 and the 
previously projected $154,600 results in the requested total 
of $269,431 by the Department (see Comment No. 5). 

Other Current Expenses ($861,159) 

As noted above, the Department advises that previously 
budgeted costs, such as $228,393 for the ES&S Equipment 
Maintenance services contract were instead spent for 
additional Other Current Expenses that were incurred this 
fiscal year, resulting in insufficient funds to pay the 
necessary $228,393 for the equipment maintenance 
contract with ES&S. As a result, the Department has 
requested such additional funds as part of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation. In addition however, the 
Department reports that there is a further shortfall in 
Other Current Expenses, although the actual shortfall is 
larger than the amount being requested, since as noted 
above, some of the costs were allocated to other subobjects, 
such as Equipment Maintenance. For example, the 
Department reports that $1,540,156 of additional Other 
Current Expenses were needed due to (a) overexpenditures 
of $135,879 from the November of 2001 election due to a 2- 
card ballot, instead of the budgeted 1-card ballot; (b) 
$415,277 ($59,717 for mailing services, $59,899 for printing 
of voter information pamphlet, $147,723 for ballots, 
$134,280 for postage and $13,658 for advertising) of 
expenditures incurred from the December of 2001 City 
Attorney run-off election, which was not budgeted; (c) 
$69,000 of additional ballot storage expenses; (d) $20,000 of 
additional travel, training and other office expenses for the 
new Elections Commission; (e) overexpenditures of 
$900,000 from the March 5, 2002 election due to the 
printing of 375 various forms of the ballots, which cost 
$1,800,000, rather than the budgeted $900,000 (see 
Comment No. 6). 

Judgements - Legal Fees ($11.652) 

Mr. Minasian reports that the Department has incurred 
legal expenses of $11,652 for services provided by Ms. Key 
Lucas, a private attorney, who was working with Retired 
Judge Herbert Donaldson, who was hired by Mr. Bill Lee, 
the City's Administrative Officer, to investigate a 
Department of Election employee's allegations regarding 
payroll reports and the misuse of City funds. The results of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



this investigation by Ms. Lucas and Judge Donaldson found 
that there was no basis for such allegations. 

Taxes, Licenses and Permits ($1,347) 

The Department is requesting a total of $1,347 including 
(a) $230 for permits for street fair booths used to recruit 
poll workers, (b) $500 annual fee to the U.S. Postal Service 
to maintain a Business Reply Mail account, (c) $580 fee to 
the Department of Parking and Traffic for street closures 
on election day, and (d) $37 fee to the Police Department for 
a "sound" permit to have outdoor amplified music during a 
poll worker recruitment event (see Comment No. 7). 

Materials and Supplies ($52.433) 

The Department previously advised that through February 
8, 2002, the Department expended $529,709 for Materials 
and Supplies and projected spending an additional 
$685,488 through June 30, 2002, for total expenditures of 
$1,215,197. Some of the projected additional expenditures 
include: the purchase of new tables and chairs ($61,987), 
miscellaneous office supplies ($50,000), envelopes 
($128,000), ballot pens ($22,500), rice bags ($11,750), 
voting booths ($18,000), additional tables ($23,584), 
luggage carts ($28,000), shelving ($45,000), bar code 
readers ($5,550) and cell phones ($7,104) (see Comment 
No. 8). 

Equipment ($374,767) 

The Department advises that these Equipment funds are 
for the second annual loan payment for Fiscal Year 2001- 
2002 to finance the purchase of the ES&S elections system. 
Under the five-year financing plan, which began on April 6, 
2000 and extends through June 1, 2005, at an interest rate 
of 5.18 percent, the Department will ultimately pay a total 
cost of approximately $3.7 million, including total interest 
expenses of approximately $500,000 over the five-year 
financing period. 

Interdepartmental Recoveries ($91,665) 

The Department budgeted the recovery of S91,665 of 
revenues from the Employees Retirement Department and 
the Health Service System in the anticipation that each of 
these departments would require the Department of 
Elections to conduct an election in FY 2002-2003 for their 
Boards. However, Mr. Minasian advises that neither of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

these Department's Boards will be requiring an election in 
FY 2002-2003, such that the Department of Elections will 
not be recovering these funds this fiscal year. 

Comments: 1. In November of 2001, the voters of San Francisco 

approved Proposition E, a Charter Amendment which (a) 
creates an Elections Commission to oversee the 
Department of Elections, (b) charges the Sheriffs 
Department with elections security as well as transporting 
and safeguarding voted ballots for the elections and (c) 
prohibits the use of City employees, other than Department 
of Elections employees, from staffing elections, unless this 
prohibition is specifically waived by the Elections 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 

2. In response to the Budget Analyst's inquiries regarding 
why the DOE retained three consultants at a cost of 
$120,000 to serve as public relations and communications 
specialists, Ms. Tammy Haygood, the former Director of 
Elections forwarded Attachment II, a March 11, 2002 
memorandum which was provided to Supervisor Daly. As 
noted in Attachment II, Ms. Haygood states that "It has 
become very obvious that the Department of Elections 
needs to improve and broaden the effectiveness, clarity, 
form and channels of its communications at all levels 
including to the general public, voters, City staff, media 
and the Board of Supervisors. Apart from my own 
perspective, this need was recently expressed to me by the 
members of the Rules Committee.... I believe that I am not 
only justified in hiring consultants to address these critical 
needs, but that I would be negligent if I were not to devote 
resources to this area right now." The communications and 
public relations contractual activities included production 
of a series of press releases and public service 
announcements, media information kits, media briefings 
and interviews and design of the DOE's website. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the funds to pay for these 
three public relations services agreements totaling 
$120,000 and the one agreement for technical elections 
consulting services for $100,000 were not included in the 
Department's budget, nor previously specifically authorized 
for funding by the Board of Supervisors. The Budget 
Analyst questions the justification for these four 
professional services contacts and considers approval of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



entire $220,000 requested to fund these four contracts to be 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. The Budget 
Analyst previously recommended that $50 : 000 that is 
included in the requested supplemental appropriation for 
"miscellaneous" professional fees, that contains no 
supporting details, also be deleted from the subject request 
(See Comment No. 14). 

3. A review of the Department's original budget and current 
budget reflects many changes and transfers of funds from 
one object or account to another. The Budget Analyst also 
notes that a review of the expenditures incurred by the 
Department indicate that the Department is incurring 
expenditures in various objects or accounts, although the 
funds for such expenditures are actually budgeted in other 
accounts. For example, the Department charged to their 
Professional and Specialized Services account (a) $87,073 to 
pay a temporary agency for Temporary employees, (b) 
$6,974 of van rental expenses and (c) $39,824 for the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to pick up ballots after 
the November and December of 2001 election. As a result, 
although such transfers are authorized by the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance, it is extremely difficult to 
accurately determine how much the Department is actually 
expending in its various expense accounts since they 
consistently transferred monies from one account to 
another, subsequent to the Board of Supervisors having 
approved this budget. 

4. For this subject request, the Department has double- 
budgeted $4,669 for the property rent for Pier 29. The 
Department also included $10,000 of miscellaneous 
unidentified property rents in their projections, that are not 
justified. Therefore, the Budget Analyst previously 
recommended reducing the requested $47,157 for Rents & 
Leases by $14,669 ($4,669 plus $10,000) to $32,488 (See 
Comment No. 14). 

5. The proposed supplemental appropriation includes an 
estimated $115,000 to rent vehicles for the March 5, 2002 
election. Given this considerable expense, the Budget 
Analyst questioned the Department regarding the need to 
spend a projected $115,000 to rent various vehicles just for 
the March 5, 2002 election. In response, Mr. Henny Lee of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the Department of Administrative Services advised the 
Budget Analyst that the Department actually expended 
approximately $185,000, or an estimated S70,000 more 
than is being requested in the subject supplemental 
appropriation, to rent various vehicles for the March 5, 
2002 election (See Attachment III which identifies the 
vehicles rented). 

Such vehicle rentals included $92,000 to rent 101 vans for 
an average period of two weeks per vehicle, or an average of 
$911 per van, for the Field Election Deputies (FEDs) to 
provide access to the various polling locations throughout 
the City. As noted above, the FED jobs were previously 
performed by other City department staff using their own 
vehicles. In addition, Mr. Lee advises that the Department 
incurred the remaining approximately $93,000 vehicle 
rental expenses to lease a total of 84 various trucks, vans, 
cars and other vehicles for other permanent and temporary 
staff to conduct voter outreach, provide election support, 
transport various ballots between locations, etc. The 
Budget Analyst questions (a) the actual need to rent 185 
(101 plus 84), vehicles at a total cost of $185,000 for the 
March 5, 2002 election, (b) the extremely high cost of 
renting these vehicles and (c) why the vans were rented for 
an average period of two weeks each, when the FEDs only 
required these vehicles on election day. The Budget Analyst 
notes that the Controller's Office, in preparing the cost 
estimates included in the Voter's Information Pamphlet for 
Proposition E, identified a cost of approximately $800 (16 
vehicles at $50 per vehicle) for the Department of Elections 
to rent vehicles for the hired Field Election Deputies. The 
Controller's estimate of $800 is $184,200, or 99 percent less 
than the $185,000 now projected to be expended by the 
Department of Elections for such vehicles. 

The Budget Analyst would not have recommended approval 
of all the requested expenditures for vehicle rentals, if the 
subject request were submitted prior to the March 5, 2002 
election. However, given that these expenditures have 
already been incurred by the Department, the Budget 
Analyst considers approval of such extraordinary vehicle 
rental costs to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



6. Regarding Other Current Expenses, the Budget Analyst 
questions spending an additional $69,000 for ballot storage 
expenses for the last six months of the fiscal year at an 
average cost of $11,500 per month. Mr. Minasian advises 
that these costs are high because the Department is 
currently using the City's secure file vendor to store the 
November, December and March ballots. In addition, the 
Department is using Pier 29, 240 Van Ness, and City Hall 
for various operations and storage. Ms. Haygood advises 
that many of the Department's problems result from the 
lack of consolidated space and reports that the Department 
is currently working with the Division of Real Estate to 
locate one consolidated site for the Department of Elections 
operations and storage needs. 

The Budget Analyst also questioned the inclusion of 
$20,000 of additional travel, training and other office 
expenses for the new Elections Commission, for which no 
details whatsoever were provided. The Budget Analyst 
previously recommended that such expenses, for which no 
detailed support was provided, be reduced. 

Furthermore, as part of this supplemental appropriation, 
the DOE is requesting an additional $900,000 ($900,000 
initially budgeted, projected costs were $1,800,000) which 
resulted from the March 5, 2002 election due to the 
printing of 375 various forms of the ballots. Mr. Minasian 
now advises that the actual costs for the March 5, 2002 
election ballot printing was $1,920,000, because the 
printing vendor did not include sales tax and a $34,000 
energy surcharge in the earlier quote. 

7. The Budget Analyst questions the $1,347 in Taxes, 
Licenses and Permit expenses that are included in the 
proposed supplemental, since they appear to be regular, 
ongoing expenses of the Department that would typically 
have been included in the Department's annual budget 
request. Therefore, the Budget Analyst considers approval 
of these expenses to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

8. In response to inquiries from the Budget Analyst 
regarding the cell phones purchased by the Department for 
$7,104, Mr. Lee advises that for the November and 
December of 2001 elections, the Department received 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



approximately 500 free cell phones from Nokia and AT&T, 
for which the DOE paid the activation and use charges. Mr. 
Lee advises that AT&T had previously offered free 
activation and use of the free cell phones by the DOE, but 
after many of the cell phones were not returned to AT&T, 
the company began charging the DOE for activation and 
use of the phones. Mr. Lee advises that, after the December 
of 2001 election, he obtained an additional 200 cell phones 
for the DOE that were being discarded by the Police 
Department. Therefore, the DOE already had 
approximately 700 cell phones, when they decided to 
purchase an additional 150 cell phones at a cost of $7,104, 
for a total of 850 cell phones. Mr. Lee advises that these cell 
phones were given to each of the 650 Inspectors assigned to 
each polling place, the 102 Field Election Deputies and 
various other DOE staff to use during the March 5, 2002 
election. Mr. Lee reports that the activation and use 
charges for these cell phones is estimated to be 
approximately $50,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

In response to the Budget Analyst's inquiry regarding why 
the Department needed additional tables and chairs, Ms. 
Haygood advised that the Department required that ten 
additional precincts be opened for the March 5, 2002 
election and that all of the precincts needed additional 
surface space due to the ballot volume. However, the 
Budget Analyst notes that the Department is requesting 
$85,571 ($61,987 plus $23,584) for such tables and chairs. 
In response to inquiries from the Budget Analyst regarding 
why numerous other Materials and Supplies expenses, such 
as miscellaneous office supplies ($50,000), envelopes 
($128,000), ballot pens ($22,500), rice bags ($11,750), 
voting booths ($18,000), and luggage carts ($28,000) were 
also incurred without first obtaining funding authorization 
by the Board of Supervisors since these expenditures were 
in excess of the Department's budget, Ms. Haygood advises 
that such expenses were required due to the complexity of 
the March 5, 2002 election. The Budget Analyst considers 
approval of the requested $52,433 for Materials and 
Supplies to be a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

9. As noted in all of the expense categories discussed above, 
the Department is requesting that the Board of Supervisors 
approve most of the requested supplemental appropriation 
on a retroactive basis because such requested funds have 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



already been incurred. The Budget Analyst questions why 
the Department did not submit the requested supplemental 
appropriation immediately after the December of 2001 City 
Attorney run-off election was held, when the Department 
knew the extent of the cost overruns of the November of 
2001 election, the December of 2001 City Attorney run-off 
election expenses that had not been included in the budget, 
the potential costs of Proposition E which had been 
approved in November of 2001, and the likely increased 
costs of the March 5, 2002 election. At that time, there 
could have been a meaningful discussion regarding the 
need for technical consultant services and public relations 
contractors, the need to rent vehicles at a cost of up to 
$185,000 for the March 5, 2002 election, additional 
materials and supplies, etc. In the professional judgement 
of the Budget Analyst, the Department should have 
obtained prior approval from the Board of Supervisors 
before incurring such expenses since such expenses were in 
excess of the Department's budget. 

Furthermore, the Budget Analyst concludes that there have 
been little, if any budgetary controls or efficienc\ 7 measures 
undertaken by the Department, coupled with a total 
disregard by the management of the Department for the 
approved appropriations established in the FY 2001-2002 
budget. 

10. The Budget Analyst notes that the Department's FY 
2001-2002 budget also included an additional $62,087 of 
revenues from (1) the elimination of discounted fees for 
early submission of ballot arguments and (2) a ten percent 
increase in the ballot argument fees beginning with the 
March of 2002 election. However, to date, such legislation 
has not been approved by the Board of Supervisors. As a 
result, the Department of Elections is continuing the 
unauthorized practice of offering discounts for ballot 
arguments, which subsidizes the costs of such paid 
arguments in the Voter Information Pamphlets, and will 
result in an estimated revenue shortfall of $62,087 for the 
Department this fiscal year. 

11. According to Mr. Mmasian, in response to the direction 
of the Elections Commission, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation does not include any funds for recanvassing 
of the 2000 elections. It should be noted that the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Department had previously estimated that it would cost 
approximately $870,000 to conduct a full recanvassing of 
both the November and December of 2000 elections. Ms. 
Gloria Young, the Clerk of the Board, advises that the 
Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the Elections 
Commission, approved a motion (File 02-0087), directing 
the Clerk of the Board to work with the Secretary of State 
to identify a scope of work for recanvassing the November 
and December of 2000 elections and to prepare a Request 
for Proposal (RFP) for a third party to perform such a 
recanvass. According to Ms. Young, the RFP has been 
issued and the bids are due by May 3, 2002. Ms. Young 
advises that she will request further direction from the 
Board of Supervisors based on the results of the bids that 
are submitted. 

12. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's 
Office, the Board of Supervisors is obligated to pay the 
salary expenditures that have been incurred for permanent 
or temporary employees who were properly authorized to 
work, and in fact did work for the DOE. Regarding the 
remaining non-salary expenditures, Mr. Lakey advises that 
the City Attorney's Office would have to review individual 
contracts and agreements that were entered into by the 
DOE to determine whether the City could withhold funds 
from such vendors and contractors, if the Board of 
Supervisors did not want to approve such funds. However, 
Mr. Lakey notes that in many of these cases, the DOE has 
already received and used the materials that may be in 
question (e.g., tables and chairs, cell phones, etc.), and the 
ability of the DOE to return such materials to vendors may 
be questionable. 

13. Mr. Ed Harrington of the Controller's Office sent a 
memorandum to Ms. Haygood on March 26, 2002, which is 
included as Attachment IV. In this memorandum, Mr. 
Harrington cites the City Charter and typical contract 
provisions and notes that "The Department of Elections 
routinely makes contractual agreements and purchases 
goods and services without (the required) Controller 
certification. After the goods or services have been received, 
you then provide my office with an invoice to pay. This 
process puts you and your vendors at risk of non-payment." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

14. The Controller's Office is currently reviewing all of the 
expenditures of the Elections Department to determine how 
much has been expended to date, to review and verify all of 
the invoices submitted, and to project expenditures for the 
balance of FY 2001-2002 in order to realistically determine 
the amount of additional funds that are required for the 
Department of Elections. As of the writing of this report, 
the Controller's Office has not completed their review. 
However, Mr. Harrington advises that he may be able to 
advise the Finance Committee at the May 1, 2002 
Committee Meeting regarding some of the results of his 
review. The Budget Analyst's final recommendations on the 
proposed supplemental appropriation for the Elections 
Department will be contingent on the results and findings 
of the Controller's review. The Budget Analyst therefore 
recommends that, if the Finance Committee wants the 
Budget Analyst to review the Controller's results and 
findings, the subject request should be continued, pending 
the receipt of the results of the Controller's Office review. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to provide for retroactivity. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



COSTS OF DECEMBER, 2001, RUNOFF ELECTION 



Attachment I 



DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT- 




POLL WORKER FEES AND POLLING PLACE RENTS K 410,661 ; 


DPT ENFORCEMENT SVCS ON DEC.11, 2001 (MEMORY PACK PICKUP) '" 19,889 




TRAINER/INSPECTOR FOR THE DEC.1 1, 2001 ELECTION 5,850 




TEMP AGENCY WORKERS I 26,331 




MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES I 28,631 




DATA PROCESSING SERVICES I 5,226 




VEHICLE RENTAL 6,740 




LIGHT TOWER RENTAL 4,875 




TENT RENTAL 10,275 




RESTROOM RENTAL I 1 1 ,548 




MAILING SERVICES 59,717 




VIP PRINTING 59,899 




DECEMBER BALLOTS I 147,723 




POSTAGE FOR VIP AND BALLOTS | 134,280 




ADVERTISING 13,658 




MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 171,219 




IS-CENTRAL SHOPS-AUTO MAINT 1,125 




IS-CENTRAL SHOPS-FUEL STOCK 1,017 




GF-MAIL SERVICES 2,312 




IS-REPRODUCTION 3,292 




IS-TIS-ISD SERVICES I 42,300 




MISCELLANEOUS NOT DETAILED I 50,000 




SUBTOTAL | 1,216,569 




TEMPORARY SALARIES/OVERTIME (ONE-THIRD OF ACTUAL THROUGH DEC)| 731,265 




TOTAL | 1,947,834 





2/19/02 



45 




Attachment II 
_ Page 1 of 2 

Department of Elections yl jf&i^W )A Tammy Haygood 

City and County of San Francisco ^^£&My0l£?*J Director 



March 11,2002 
To : Supervisor Chris Daly 



From : Tammy Haygood 

Director of Elections 

Subject: Information regarding consultants hired for communications, 

outreach, and voter education 



This is in response to your inquiry regarding communications specialists hired by the 
Department of Elections since the November election. The following is the information 
you have requested: 

■ Contractual commitments. Ironically, the article in the San Francisco Chronicle 
regarding my hiring of "communications specialists" is an example of poor 
communications. The Chronicle stated: "Since November, Haygood has hired four 
communications specialists from public relations firms, including Bill Strawn, former 
deputy press secretary for then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, to help her answer 
questions from voters, candidates and the media." In fact, I have not actually hired 
two of the four consultants whom I introduced to the Chronicle reporter who wrote 
the article; they are working on a pro bono basis. I have requested their advice on a 
variety of communications, voter education, and outreach issues, and it has been 
very valuable. I have been soliciting such advice from many individuals throughout 
the public and private sectors at no cost to the City. 

The two consultants with whom I do have contractual commitments are working on 
an as-needed basis through March 31, 2002. Each is limited to a maximum of 
S50,000, although I am hoping to keep actual charges below that amount. The 
scope of services they are providing is described in the two attachments to this 
memo. In addition, I employed one communications consultant prior to the 
November election at a cost of $20,000. 

■ Funding. The FY 01-02 original budget for the Department of Elections was based 
on a variety of estimated costs for professional and other services, totaling 
S3. 9 million for two elections. This amount included an estimate of $50,000 for voter 
outreach services. Of the $3.9 million, approximately $2.3 million has been 
expended or committed at this time for the November and December elections. As 
would be expected for a department that operates under such major uncertainties, 
some costs have exceeded last spring's estimates for the budget, and others are 



1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place - Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102-4634 
Voice (415) 554-4375; Fax (415) 554-7344; Absente&,Fax (415) 554-4372; TDD (415) 554-4386 



Attachment II T . 
fage 2 oi 2 



Supervisor Chris Daly 
December 28, 2001 
Page 2 



below budget. My staff and I are preparing a detailed line-item analysis of our 
current and projected expenditures, which we will need to support the request for 
supplemental appropriation to be submitted in the next few weeks; however, 
I believe that the consulting services described above are both within my budgetary 
authority and defensible. 

Question regarding "Deputy Director" position. You have asked about a 
position that was added to the Department of Elections FY 00-01 budget by the 
Board of Supervisors. My understanding is that this position was a class 1376 
Special Assistant XVII, and that this position was not included in either the 
reorganization plan or the FY 01-02 budget request submitted by the department to 
the Board of Supervisors last spring. 

I am further informed that the three "Deputy Director" positions in the FY 01-02 
budget were in substitution for four "Division Manager" positions that existed in the 
FY 00-01 budget. These Deputy Director positions have not yet been classified by 
the Department of Human Resources; hence; their specific responsibilities have not 
been defined. Of these three positions, only one is currently filled, as an operations 
manager; this employee is not able to support the department's communications 
needs. The funding for one of the other two positions has been diverted to pay for 
the continued employment of the 1376 Special Assistant XVII referred to above, to 
whom I have not assigned communications responsibilities. The third Deputy 
Director position is vacant at this time. 

■ Additional comments. It has become very obvious that the Department of 
Elections needs to improve and broaden the effectiveness, clarity, form, and 
channels of its communications at all levels including to the general public, voters, 
City staff, media, and the Board of Supervisors. Apart from my own perspective, this 
need was recently expressed to me by the members of the Rules Committee. The 
department unfortunately no longer has the luxury of utilizing such an outstanding 
spokesperson as Chris Hayashi was last year, despite the fact that our needs for 
communications are as great as they were before, if not greater. 

I believe that I am not only justified in hiring consultants to address these critical 
needs, but that I would be negligent if I were not to devote resources to this area 
right now. The department's communications efforts will result over time in improved 
understanding by media, elected officials, and the public of both the election process 
and the department's operations. Such improved understanding is an essential 
ingredient to help break the pattern of reactively explaining the department's 
activities, a pattern that has been diverting far too many management resources. 

Please let me know if you would like any further information on this matter. 

c: Ed Harrington, Bill Lee 



Attachment III 
Page 1 ot 4 



1 

| 



■. 



u 



48 



Attachment Til 
Page 2 of A 



j. 



Ii 






ill 



■:■ 



3 3 3 ; = 



si a 



i ; , -\ 



49 



Attachment Til 
Pas,e 3 of 4 



•l-ISS! 



=1=1 ' 






J J 






HI 



=1 S| : 



'I *! 'i 'I ; 









50 



Hi 



h. 



Attachment III 
Pa?e h of k 



51 




Attacnnent IV 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OTTTCE 8f THE CONTROLL] 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Tammy Hay good, Director of Elections 

FROM: Ed Harrington 

DATE: March 26, 2002 

SUBJECT: City Contracting Rules 




I believe there may be some confusion on your part when you say the Department of Elections 
typically follows the City's rules when purchasing goods and services. This is not accurate. The 
City's rules require that the Controller certify the availability of funds before a contract or 
purchase order is complete and before any obligation exists for the City. The Department of . 
Elections routinely makes contractual agreements and purchases goods and services without any 
Controller certification. After the goods or services have been received, you then provide my 
office with an invoice to pay. This process puts you and your vendors at risk of non-payment. 

The City Charter says: 

No officer or employee shall bind the City and County to expend money unless 
there is a written contract or other instrument and unless the Controller shall 
certify that sufficient unencumbered balances are available in the proper fund to 
meet the payments under such contract or other obligation as these become due. 

Typical contracts signed by you this year include the wording: 

This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the City's charter and the 
budget decisions of its Mayor and Board of Supervisors. No funds will be 
available hereunder until prior written authorization certified by the City's 
Controller. The Controller cannot authorize payments unless funds have been 
certified as available in the budget or in a supplemental appropriation. This 
Agreement shall automatically terminate, without liability to the City, if funds 
are not properly appropriated by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors or 
certified by the Controller. 



52 

415-554-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodletl Place • Room 316 • San Francisco CA 94102-4694 FAX 415-5' 



Tammy Haygood 

City procurement processes Attachment IV 

March 26, 2002 Pag e 2 of 2 

Page 2 



The Elections Department also is misusing the City's "blanket purchase order" process. A 
blanket PO is designed to let a vendor know that a City department or multiple City departments 
plan to purchase goods or services from that vendor. The City issues a blanket PO so we can 
track the total spending against it — often across departmental lines. It is not a purchase order 
committing the City to spend any money. It is not a certification by the Controller that funds 
exist to pay for any goods or services. Typically, this is the only item the Department of 
Elections processes through our accounting system before we see an invoice. Blanket PO's have 
the following statement on their face: 

This is not an order for goods or services.... A separate contract purchase order 
must be recorded against this document to encumber funds, constituting the 
Controller's certification and approval of funds... 



cc: Clerk, Board of Supervisors 
Members, Board of Supervisors 
Ted Lakey, City Attorney 
Judith Blackwell, Purchaser 



53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 6 and 7 - Files 02-0494 and 02-0495 
Department: Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Items: File 02-0494 

Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to execute an 
agreement between the City and County of San Francisco 
and Serco Management Services, Inc. for a parking meter 
management system. 

File 02-0495 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that revenue collection and coin counting services can be 
practically performed by a private contractor at a lower 
cost than if the work were performed by City employees. 



FILE 02-0494: PARKING METER 
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
Purpose of 
Management 

Agreement: To provide a parking meter management system. The 

proposed management agreement includes the purchase 
of 25,250 electronic parking meters, the development and 
installation of a parking meter software system, revenue 
collection services and coin counting services. 

Description: The proposed resolution would award a parking meter 

management agreement to Serco Management Services, 
Inc. (Serco). According to Ms. Julia Dawson of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT), the DPT would 
purchase 25,000 single space electronic parking meters 
and 250 multi-space 1 electronic meters from Serco. The 
25,250 electronic parking meters will accept nickels, 
dimes, quarters and Translink 2 card payments. The 
parking meters under the jurisdiction of the DPT are 



1 Multi-space parking meters are used predominantly for motorcycle parking spaces. DPT would 
purchase 125 multi-space meters that cover 6 parking spaces each and 125 multi-space meters that 
cover 8 parking spaces each. 

- A Translink card is a specialized Bay Area version of a Smart Card. A Smart Card is a debit card 
that could eventually be used to pay for such Bay Area transit services such as AC Transit, BART, 
Mum and SamTrans. The Translink cards are currently being used under a pilot program by Muni, 
AC Transit and BART. 



54 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

located on the City's streets, in City-owned metered 
parking lots and City-owned parking garages. 

According to the terms of the proposed agreement, Serco 
would be obligated to perform five main categories of 
work over a five-year period as follows: 

(1) Software and hardware engineering services, 
including software design, development and 
installation of the new electronic parking meters; 

(2) Smart Card Program management services and 
technical support services to enable motorists to use 
Translink cards for parking meter payment (see 
Comment No. 3); 

(3) Training services including classroom and on-the-job 
training, and continuing technical support for City 
and Serco staff; 

(4) Revenue collection services for the coins and 
Translink cards; and 

(5) Com counting services, including sorting, counting 
and depositing all coins within 24 hours of collection. 

Revenue collection and coin counting services would be 
provided by Serco Monday through Friday. Revenue 
collection and coin counting services would not be 
provided on Saturdays, Sundays or City holidays unless, 
in the future, the City was to change the service 
schedules. 

File 02-0495 is a resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that revenue collection and coin 
counting services can be performed at a lower cost by a 
private firm than by City employees. As noted in the 
section of this report on File 02-0495, Serco currently 
provides the revenue collection services and the Municipal 
Railway (Muni) Revenue Section currently provides the 
coin counting services through a workorder from DPT (see 
Comment No. 14). 

According to Ms. Dawson, there are currently 21,528 
single space parking meters installed throughout the 
City. The City currently does not have any multi-space 
parking meters. Attachment I-A, provided by DPT, shows 
the average age of the City's parking meters and the 
number of meters being repaired, missing, not installed or 



55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

test meters that must be replaced. Ms. Dawson reports 
that the industry standard for the useful life of electronic 
parking meters is 7 years. However, Ms. Dawson advises 
that parking meters are typically used by municipalities 
for 10 years or longer. 

As noted in Attachment I -A, the City has a total of 23,070 
existing parking meters with an average age of up to 15 
years, including 21,082 mechanical parking meters and 
1,988 electronic parking meters with an average age of 5 
years (see Comment No. 9). As noted in Attachment I-A, 
DPT would install 21,530 single space electronic parking 
meters and 220 multi-space electronic parking meters 
throughout the City, for a total of 21,750 parking meters 
covering 23,070 spaces. DPT would keep a reserve of 
3,500 meters, including 3,470 single space parking meters 
or 16.1 percent and 30 multi-space electronic parking 
meters or 13.6 percent for use as new installations or as 
replacement meters if an installed meter needs repair. 
Attachment I-B, provided by DPT, explains why the 
single space meter reserve of 16.1 percent is needed, the 
differences between the existing and new meters, and why 
the City needs new meters. 

All of the new electronic parking meters would be fully 
loaded with software that allows the meters to be 
programmed and monitored by Serco and DPT staff. 
According to the terms of the proposed agreement, and as 
noted in Attachment I-B, provided by DPT, the 21,750 
new electronic parking meters, excluding the 3,500 
reserve parking meters, would be purchased by the City 
and installed by Serco by February 6, 2003. 

Amount Payable by 

the City to Serco Over 

the Five Year Term 

of* the Management 

Agreement: As shown in Attachment II, provided by DPT, the DPT 

estimates that the City would pay to Serco $35,706,534 
over the five-year term of the proposed agreement, 
including (a) the purchase and installation of 25,250 
parking meters and related equipment and software at a 
cost of $27,894,691, or $25,105,222 (90 percent) in Year 1 
and $2,789,469 (10 percent) in Year 2, (b) revenue 



56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

collection services at $5,785,069 over the five-year 
agreement or an average of $1,157,014 annually, and (c) 
coin counting services at $2,026,774 over the five year 
agreement or an average of $405,355 annually. The 
$27,854,691 payment for the purchase, installation and 
related costs of the parking meters would he lease 
financed over a seven year period under a separate 
financing agreement between the City and a lender to be 
selected through a competitive bid process (see Estimated 
Incremental Costs of Proposed Agreement Section). 



In total, under the proposed agreement, the City would 
pay to Serco an estimated $26,641,762 in Year 1, 
$4,326,009 in Year 2, $1,551,734 in Year 3, $1,569,172 in 
Year 4 and $1,617,857 in Year 5. 

Ms. Dawson advises that the 21,750 new parking meters 
(excluding the 3,500 reserve parking meters) are to be 
installed by February 6, 2003. 

According to the terms of the proposed agreement, the 
cost of the proposed agreement cannot exceed $50,000,000 
over the five-year term. There are no provisions in the 
proposed agreement for extending the agreement beyond 
five years. In Attachment I-B, Ms. Dawson explains the 
basis of the $50,000,000 not to exceed amount of the 
proposed agreement which would be necessary should the 
City purchase additional parking meters for areas of the 
City that do not currently have parking meters. According 
to the terms of the proposed agreement, the City could 
purchase additional parking meters or spare parts at any 
time during the five-year term at 20 percent off the 
manufacturer's catalog prices, the same terms as the 
initial purchase of electronic parking meters. 

Ms. Dawson states in Attachment I-B that if the not-to- 
exceed amount of $50,000,000 were significantly lower, 
the City would need to negotiate a contract modification 
in order to meet the potential future demand for spare 
parts and additional parking meters. The negotiation of 
such a contract modification, according to Ms. Dawson, 
would "..expose the City to additional risk from Serco's 
potential requests for renegotiation of contract terms and 



57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

conditions, including pricing for products and services." 
Ms. Dawson adds that the addition of new parking meters 
and the appropriation of funds for additional purchases 
would require future Board of Supervisors approval. 

The funding source of up to $50,000,000 is additional 
parking meter revenue to be generated by the electronic 
parking meters, according to Ms. Dawson. 

Estimated Incremental 

Costs of Proposed 

Agreement: As shown in Attachment III, provided by DPT, the DPT 

estimates that, over the seven-year useful life of the new 
electronic parking meters, incremental costs related to the 
proposed agreement are estimated to total $37,996,691 3 , 
including $2,291,157 ($37,996,691 less $35,706,534) in 
financing costs for the $27,894,691 purchase, installation 
and related costs. The $37,996,691 will be paid as follows: 
(a) $3,139,469 in Year 1, (b) $5,804,108 in Year 2, (c) 
$5,793,282 m Year 3, (d) $5,783,920 in Year 4, (e) 
$5,805,000 m Year 5, (f) $5,825,103 in Year 6, and (g) 
$5,845,809 m Year 7. 

According to Ms. Nadia Sesay of the Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance, the DPT would enter into a private lease 
financing agreement to finance the estimated cost of 
$27,894,691 for the purchase and the installation of the 
equipment and software, at an estimated fixed interest 
rate of 5.5 percent per annum. Ms. Sesay reports that the 
City intends to select a lender through a competitive bid 
process based on the lowest interest rate bid. According to 
Ms. Sesay, the DPT, the City Attorney's Office, the 
Mayor's Office and the Purchasing Division would then 
evaluate the bids received from lenders and award the 
lease financing agreement to the lowest bidder that is in 
compliance with the the City's Equal Benefits Ordinance 
and all other applicable City laws. This private lease 
financing agreement will require separate approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 



3 Due to rounding discrepancies, the Budget Analyst reports incremental costs related to the 
proposed agreement of $37,996,691. DPT has included in Attachment III incremental costs related 
to the proposed agreement of $37,996,692. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Under this form of financing, which would ensure that 
funds were available in Years 1 and 2 of the proposed 
agreement for the purchase and installation of the 
electronic parking meter equipment and software, a 
selected lender would pay Serco a total of $27,894,691 for 
the equipment, software and installation services. The 
City's lease finance debt would then be retired through 
semi-annual lease purchase payments appropriated in the 
DPT's future annual budgets from parking meter 
revenues deposited to the Off-Street Parking Fund, 
subject to appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. The lease term would be up to seven years, 
the anticipated useful life of the parking meters, in 
accordance with the statutory lease term limitations 
published in the California Debt Issuance Primer issued 
by the State Treasurer. Ms. Dawson states that the initial 
lease purchase payments for acquisition and installation 
of the equipment and software will be included in the 
DPT's FY 2002-2003 budget m the approximate amount of 
$2,200,000. In years two through seven of the proposed 
agreement, lease purchase payments of $5,020,000 would 
be included in the DPT annual budget. As shown in 
Attachment III, the DPT would be required to make lease 
purchase payments of $5,020,000 in each of the two years 
subsequent to the fifth and final year of the subject 
proposed agreement with Serco in order to fulfill the 
seven-year term of the lease purchase agreement with the 
lender. According to Ms. Sesay, there would be no penalty 
for early repayment of this private loan. 

As shown in Attachment III, the DPT would also have 
costs during the seven-year financing period for the new 
parking meters to pay for new DPT staff, revenue 
collection services, com counting services, replacement 
batteries, spare parts and equipment, and a workorder to 
the Department of Telecommunications and Information 
Services (DTIS) for an Oracle software license which is 
necessary because Serco's software requires Oracle 
software to function, according to Ms. Dawson. 



Estimated Total Cost 
of Parking Meter 
Program: 



As shown in Attachment IV, provided by DPT, the total 
estimated parking meter program costs, including the cost 



59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

of the proposed agreement, is $45,869,138 over the seven- 
year useful life of the new parking meters. This 
$45,869,138 total cost estimate exceeds the $37,996,691 
incremental cost estimate by $7,872,447 because such 
total costs include the existing costs of DPT personnel 
(approximately $637,059 over seven years) and the 
existing costs for DPT's revenue collection services 
(approximately $5,639,058 over seven years) and coin 
counting services (approximately $1,596,328 over seven 
years). 



Estimated Additional 
Annual Revenues: 



Attachment V is the Controller's certification that 
installation of the new electronic parking meters would 
result in a $5.9 million increase in parking meter revenue 
annually, which represents a 47 percent increase over the 
projected FY 2001-02 amount of $12.6 million. This 
increased revenue is reflected in Attachment III as 
$5,922,000 annually. 



As shown in Attachment III, the annual increased 
revenue of $5,922,000 anticipated to be generated by the 
new electronic parking meters would cover the estimated 
annual cost of the proposed agreement. Over the seven- 
year useful life of the new parking meters, the DPT 
estimates that increased revenue of $38,879,546 will 
exceed estimated incremental costs of $37,996,691 by 
$882,855 or 2.3 percent (see Comment No. 2 below). The 
entire S45,869,138 cost of the parking meter program, 
including the incremental and existing costs, would be 
paid from the Off-Street Parking Fund. 



Comments on 
File 02-0494: 



1. Attachment VI, provided by DPT, shows the estimated 
total annual revenues and expenses of the DPT City- 
owned parking meters and City-owned parking garages. 
According to Ms. Dawson, all parking revenues from City- 
owned parking meters and City-owned parking garages 
accrue to the Off-Street Parking Fund. The Budget 
Analyst notes that in Attachment VI, the General Fund 
support to the Off-Street Parking Fund is anticipated to 
increase from $940,748 in Fiscal Year 2002-2003, the first 
year of the agreement with Serco to SI, 925, 553 in Fiscal 
Year 2006-2007, the last year of the agreement with 



60 



Memo ro Finance Committee 

Mav 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Serco. The estimated increases in General Fund support 
required for the Off-Street Parking Fund are due to the 
fact that expenditures are expected to increase at a 
greater rate than projected growth in revenues. According 
to Ms. Dawson, if the projected annual parking meter 
revenues increase by more than $5,922,000, the annual 
increase currently projected by DPT and certified by the 
Controller, then the General Fund support to the Off- 
Street Parking Fund would decrease by the amount of the 
additional increase in revenues. 

2. The Budget Analyst notes that the increased projected 
revenue over the expected seven-year useful life of the 
new parking meters of $38,879,546 (Attachment III) 
exceeds estimated incremental costs of $37,996,691 by 
$882,855 or only 2.3 percent. Therefore, there is a risk 
that minor deviations from the DPT's projections, either 
costs in excess of current estimates or the realization of 
less new revenue, could eliminate the projected net 
revenue benefit and, potentially, result in a net cost over 
the seven-year period, thereby resulting in further growth 
in net General Fund support of the Off-Street Parking 
Fund over and above the projections discussed in 
Comment 1, above. 

3. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Serco 
would conduct a six-month Smart Card Pilot Program to 
evaluate the viability of the Smart Card technology. 
During this six-month period, Serco would program Smart 
Card software in 500 of the new electronic parking 
meters. At the end of the six-month period, Serco would 
assess the Smart Card Pilot Program. If the City deems 
the Smart Card Pilot Program to be successful, then the 
City would activate the entire inventory of new electronic 
parking meters to accept Translink card payments. Under 
the revenue collection services portion of the proposed 
agreement, Serco would collect revenue information for 
Translink card payment activity and provide this 
information to DPT. Ms. Dawson reports that DPT would 
send the debit card payment activity to Trnnslmk's 
banking service for reimbursement. 

4. According to Ms. Dawson, the proposed management 
agreement does not include the maintenance and repair of 



61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the new electronic parking meters. Such services are 
currently and would continue to be provided by the DPT 
Parking Meters Shop, a subdivision of the DPT Traffic 
Operations Division, unless the repairs are covered by the 
manufacturer's warranty, in which case Serco would be 
responsible for the repair and/or replacement of the 
parking meters (see Comment No. 8). 

5. According to Ms. Dawson, DPT will be including a new 
1824 Principal Administrative Analyst position in DPT's 
FA' 2002-2003 budget to supervise the proposed 
agreement with Serco, subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. Ms. Dawson reports that DPT has an existing 
1844 Senior Management Assistant position that would 
assist the 1824 Principal Administrative Analyst in 
supervising the proposed agreement with Serco. All new 
positions will be analyzed by the Budget Analyst in the 
forthcoming FY 2002-2003 budget review. 

6. The City can terminate the proposed agreement, or a 
component and/or provision of the proposed agreement, at 
any time during the five-year term with 30-days written 
notice to Serco. 

7. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the City 
would own, in perpetuity, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, 
non-transferable license to use management software and 
future upgrades provided by Serco to the City under the 
terms of the proposed agreement. 

8. The warranty for the new electronic parking meters 
would be in effect for five years from the contract award 
date or the manufacturer's warranty, whichever is later. 
The manufacturer's warranty would remain in effect even 
upon early termination of the agreement. According to 
Appendix G of the proposed agreement, "Serco will repair, 
adjust or replace all Defective Equipment. If any of the 
Equipment require repair for the same defect more than 
three times, Serco will replace the Equipment... The 
warranty does not cover damages, defects or failures 
caused by or due to accident, improper handling or 
operation, use of the equipment for experimental 
purposes, natural disaster (including earthquake), 



62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



vandalism, and neglect of routine maintenance as 
instructed bv Serco in their training." 



9. The City currently has 1,988 electronic parking meters. 
According to Ms. Dawson, from 1996 to 1998, the City 
purchased 1,879 new electronic parking meters and was 
provided with, at no cost to the City, 109 test electronic 
meters from three different vendors, to test their 
reliability prior to replacing all of the remaining 21,082 
(23,070 less 1,988) mechanical meters with electronic 
meters. According to Ms. Dawson, the 1,879 electronic 
parking meters, which cost the City $379,239, have an 
estimated fair market value of $49,525 (approximately 
$26.36 per meter for 1,879 meters). Ms. Dawson reports 
that this estimate of $49,525 is based on DPTs experience 
with buying and selling surplus meter parts. Ms. Dawson 
advises that 1,879 of the existing electronic meters would 
be sold to another jurisdiction when the new electronic 
meters are installed. As shown in Attachment VI, 
estimated revenues of $49,525 from the sale of these test 
electronic parking meters would accrue to the Off-Street 
Parking Fund. The remaining 109 electronic meters 
would be returned to the three vendors which loaned the 
meters to the City. Ms. Dawson explains in Attachment I- 
B that the 1,988 existing electronic meters need to be 
replaced because, for example, "These meters have older 
battery connections that are subject to corrosion, which 
means that they have a battery life of about six 
months... they are running a different internal software 
system that is not compatible with the other meters... We 
would have to collect these meters in a different manner 
from every other meter in the system." 

10. According to Ms. Dawson, on May 18, 1999, the 
Purchasing Division, on behalf of DPT, issued a Request 
for Proposals (RFP) for the three components of the 
parking meter management agreement including (1) 
acquiring new single and multi-space parking me1 
casings, elecro-mechanical locks, related equipment and 
installation services, (2) revenue collection services, and 
(3) coin counting services. Ms. Dawson advises that each 
of the three components could have been a separate 
agreement and awarded to three different firms. After the 
Purchasing Division, on behalf of DPT, issued five change 



63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



notices to the original RFP, final proposals were required 
by June 30, 2000. Attachment VIII, provided by DPT, 
shows the name, title and agency affiliation of the RFP 
evaluation panel, the nine firms which submitted 
proposals to the Purchasing Division in response to the 
RFP, the points given by the evaluation panel to each of 
the firms which submitted proposals for both the written 
and interview portions of the evaluations and the bids 
submitted by each of the firms. Attachment VIII also 
includes a list of the firms which received the RFP. 

The following table lists all of the firms which responded 
to the RFP and the amounts (bids) submitted by each 
firm. 



Element I: Parking Meters Purchase and 
Installation 


Serco 


$21,129,981 


Duncan 


$19,253,769 


IntelliPark 


$12,100,800 


Worldwide 


$15,452,946 


Central 


$18,003,910 


Reinhardt 


$1,241,400 


Medeco 


$2,488,104 






Element II: Annual Revenue Collection 
Services 


Serco 


$915,000 


On-Street 


$589,650 


Worldwide 


$1,195,500 


Dunbar 


$745,500 


Central 


$1,699,500 






Element III: Annual Coin Counting 
Services 


Serco 


$409,000 


Worldwide 


$296,750 


Dunbar 


$162,500 


Central 


$172,000 



As shown in Attachment VIII and in the table above, 
Serco submitted (a) the highest price bid of $21,129,981 
for the parking meter component, (b) the third highest 
price bid for the revenue collection services component of 



64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



$915,000, and (c) the highest price bid for coin counting 
services of $409,000. The Budget Analyst notes that the 
proposed negotiated cost of $27,894,691 is 32 percent or 
$6,764,710 more than Serco's initial price proposal of 
$21,129,981 for the parking meter equipment, software 
and installation. Ms. Dawson reports that the difference 
between Serco's price proposal for the RFP and the 
proposed negotiated cost of $27,894,691 is due to DPT's 
request for additional software to be included in the 
proposed agreement and the inclusion of software 
licensing. 

As shown in Attachment VIII, the price proposal 
component of the total available points under the RFP is 
as follows: (a) for Element I: Parking Meters Purchase 
and Installation, the price proposal was allocated 30 
points out of a total 680 available points or approximately 
4.4 percent; (b) for Element II: Annual Revenue Collection 
Services, the price proposal was allocated 10 points out of 
a total 410 available points or approximately 2.4 percent; 
and (c) for Element III: Annual Coin Counting Services, 
the price proposal was allocated 10 points out of a total 
310 available points or approximately 3.2 percent. Ms. 
Dawson explains in Attachment VII why the price 
proposal component was allocated less that 5 percent of 
the total available points under the RFP. According to Ms. 
Dawson, DPT "wanted to emphasize technical superiority 
over price." 

11. Ms. Dawson reports that the cost of this parking 
meter management agreement was not reflected in the 
Department's FY 2001-2002 budget. Actual payments to 
Serco would not begin until FY 2002-2003. Ms. Dawson 
states in Attachment VII that because the $27,894,691 
cost of replacement of all of the parking meters is 
anticipated to be funded by parking meter revenues, 
which would cover the costs of the seven-year lease 
financing payments, the DPT does not need the 
$1,600,616 placed on reserve in the FY" 1998-99 budget for 
the parking meter replacement project. Therefore, the 
Budget Analyst recommends that this reserve be closed 
out and returned to the General Fund. 



65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



12. Attachment IX, provided by DPT, is a description of 
the features for the 25,000 new single space electronic 
parking meters. 

13. Attachment X, provided by DPT, is DPT's response to 
an inquiry from the Budget Analyst whether there are 
other cities which have entered into agreements such as 
the agreement that is presently before the Board of 
Supervisors. As stated in by Ms. Dawson in Attachment 
X, "Most cities are required to purchase equipment, such 
as parking meters, by low bid. Local purchasing 
regulations do not permit many cities to combine products 
and services under one RFP." 

14. In her memorandum to the Budget Analyst 
(Attachment XI), Ms. Virginia Harrington of Muni states 
that "Mum's FY2002/03 budget request deleted the 
$212,000 in work order funding that Muni has previously 
received from DPT. Muni deleted funding for two Revenue 
Section positions (job classification 9110), which had been 
funded from the DPT work order." According to Ms. 
Harrington, the two Revenue Section positions are vacant. 
Ms. Harrington further states that "A third supervisory 
position (job classification 9116), which had been funded 
from the DPT workorder, has been reassigned to the 
Revenue Section's Field Unit... The funding for that 
position has been identified within Muni's FY 2002/03 
'base budget'." 



66 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

FILE 02-0495: REVENUE COLLECTION AND 
COIN COUNTING SERVICES 
"PROPOSITION J" APPROVAL 
Services to be 

Performed: Revenue collection and coin counting services. Such 

services to be provided under the proposed parking meter 
management system agreement with Serco, the subject of 
File 02-0494. 

Description: Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 

contract with private firms for services, if the Controller 
determines, and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that 
such services can in fact be performed by private firms at 
a lower cost than similar work performed by City 
employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for 
revenue collection and coin counting services for the City's 
parking meters for FY 2001-02 would result in the 
estimated savings as follows: 



67 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Citv-Operated Service Costs 
Parking Meter Com Collection 

Salaries 

Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal 

Parking Meter Coin Counting 
Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Subtotal 
Estimated Total City- 



Lowest Highest 

Salary Salary 

Step Step 

$930,698 $1,102,010 

268.937 295.867 

11,199,635 $1,397,877 



$124,509 

36.295 

$160,804 



$147,446 

39.901 

$187,347 



Operated Service Costs $1,360,439 $1,585,224 



Estimated Total Contract Costs* 
Parking Meter Coin Collection 
Parking Meter Coin Counting 
Estimated Total Contract 
Costs 

Estimated Savings 



$1,199,155 
158.420 



$1,202,223 
159,035 



$1.357,575 $1,361,258 
$2,864 $223,966 



* The Controller's estimated contract costs include labor costs only, 
and do not include non-labor costs. Therefore, the amounts shown in 
the table above for Estimated Total Contract Costs differ from the 
total contract costs described under File 02-0494. 



Comments on 
File 02-0495: 



1. Ms. Dawson reports that the City's current contract for 
coin collection services was first certified as required by 
the Charter Section 10.104 in 1978 and has been provided 
by an outside contractor since that time. As noted in the 
attached memorandum from Ms. Dawson (Attachment 
XII), the City has contracted with Serco for coin collection 
services since September 1, 1997. However, coin counting 
would be a new service since, as previously stated, this 
function has been handled by Mum. 



This contract with Serco for coin collection services was 
originally supervised by the Tax Collector's Office when it 
first received Controller's certification in 1978. Ms. 
Dawson reports that supervision of this contract was 



68 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

transferred from the Tax Collector's Office to DPT when 
DPT became a City department in 1990. 

2. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses is shown in Attachment XIII to 
this report. 

Recommendations: Files 02-0494 and 02-0495 

1. Request the Controller to close out the previously 
budgeted and reserved $1,600,616 in DPT's FY 1998-99 
budget for the parking meter replacement project in order 
to return such monies to the General Fund, as noted in 
Comment No. 11 above. 

2. The proposed agreement includes in Appendix G a 
detailed project schedule which, according to Ms. Dawson, 
demonstrates a deadline date of February 6, 2003 by 
which 21,750 of the new electronic parking meters must 
be installed. In the professional judgement of the Budget 
Analyst, the date of February 6, 2003 in Appendix G is 
unclear and could be subject to interpretation. Therefore, 
the Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed 
agreement be amended to specifically state that the 
deadline for installing the 21,750 new electronic parking 
meters, excluding the 3,500 reserve parking meters, 
would be February 6, 2003 based on a contract award 
date of May 10, 2002. 

3. Overall, the Budget Analyst notes that the parking 
meter replacement program has been contemplated since 
Fiscal Year 1998-99, when the City first established a 
General Fund Reserve of $1,600,616 for this purpose. 
Also, according to Ms. Dawson, the vast majority of the 
City's existing parking meters should be replaced because 
they have exceeded their useful life, and the costs of 
maintaining mechanical parking meters has become 
excessive. However, the Budget Analyst notes that 
because (a) the $50,000,000 not to exceed amount of the 
proposed contract exceeds the $35,706,534 total estimated 
cost of the contract by $14,293,466 or 40 percent, (b) the 
projected net revenue benefit of $38,879,546 exceeds the 
estimated incremental costs of $37,996,691 by $882,854 
over seven years, or only 2.3 percent, and such revenue 
benefit could easily be eliminated by minor increases in 



69 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

expenditures or the realization of less incremental 
revenue, (c) consideration of price was an extremely low 
portion of only 2.4 percent to 4.4 percent of the evaluation 
of the competing proposals for the purchase and 
installation of new parking meters, Collection Services 
and Coin Counting services, and (d) the proposed 
negotiated cost of $27,S94,691 is 32 percent more than 
Serco's initial price proposal of $21,129,981, the Budget 
Analyst considers the proposed resolutions to be policy 
matters for the Board of Supervisors. 



70 



Attachment I-A 



Department of Parking and Traffic 

Parking Meter Program 

Parking Meter Inventory and Age 

4/16/02 









Average 




Manufacturer 


Model 


Type 


Age in Years 


Quantity 


POM 


APM 


Electronic 


5 


1,879 


POM 


E 


Mechanical 


10 


2,230 


POM 


S 


Mechanical 


15 


12,598 


Duncan 


VIP 


Mechanical 


15 


4,712 


Test electronic 


meters* 




1-4 


109 


Total 








21,528 


Being repaired 








156 


Missing 








968 


Not installed 








418 
1,542 



Total Spaces to Install Meters 



23,070 



DPT plans to install 

1 10 multi space meters that cover 6 spaces 
1 10 multi space meters that cover 8 spaces 
for a total of 



660 
880 
1,540 spaces 



DPT will also install single space meters on 



21,530 spaces 



Inventory 

DPT will have a remaining inventory of: 
single space meters 
multi space meters 



3,470 
30 



"109 test electronic meters on loan to the City 



71 



APR. -25 021THL] 09 42 CUV & CO. OF SF PARKING Dh?T. TEL 5542114 j^eTotV 



j 5 * n c ■_£_c__o City and County of San Fran 




CISCO 



□ EPAHTMEUT OF P«HK)NO i THAFC| C 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWH, JR. Mayor 

FRED M. MAMDUN. EXHC-JTIVc DIRECTOR 




To: 
From: 



MEMORANDUM 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

Julia Dawson, Deputy Director. Administration and Finance 
Subject: 16% Inventory Reserve for Single Space Meters 

Date: April 25, 2002 

Parking and Traffic needs to kee D a 16% inventory of single <rw P m.. 
have enough meters, cases, and locks to cover neZess^ r l a us S S?n ' "^ 
« to keep our meters up and operational as much as possibTe m mL ,n e the f °?,f 0al 
parking spaces and City revenues. As meters are broken, vudS Tstolen h 
expec to happen in significant numbers because thiev^wSnoWl^S ^ ^ 
money rrom the coin vault, we must have enough inventory on hS f ? 

ssrs We selected a i6% *^ ™ -iSir^x^e 

eacn rearer 1% of the remaining inventor/ We exnect trnr mrh -,«■ ■« , auocate 
.nvej.tory of replacement paxts in his or he/vehi clc rZ^^Zl' *"* ^ 
and ringing it back to the shop for repair. We cLXXS^SST^ 
month, waich is all that we can cover with our 16 repairers wT, h T 16 '° 00 . re P air > P e ^ 



(415) 5S4-PARK FAX (415) 5>4-5=34 

23 Van N99i Avanuo, Sulto 410 

72 San Franclaco, CA 94102-4576 



021THI' 



;S CITY k CO. OF SF PARKING DEPT. 



ILL^O'mi'} 



Actacnner.u -l-p 
Page 2 ot 5 



FRANCISCO 



City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PARKING 4 TRAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR.. Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN. EX£CJ~,V£ DIRECTOR 




MEMORANDUM 

To: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

From: Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and FinaiC 

Subject: Proposed Contract for Parking Meter Management System 

Date: April 25, 2002 

Mechanical vs. Electronic Meters : The City's current mechanical meters have about 
130 separate moving pans, including mechanical timers, each of which wear and need to 
be adjusted or replaced over time. The moving parts are vital to the meter's ability to put 
accurate rime for money on the meter and count down the time once coins have been 
deposited. As the parts wear, the meter timing drifts, leading to inaccurate meters that 
provide improper time for the coins deposited. All meter manufacturers have 
discontinued the manufacture of mechanical meters so most parts must be special ordered 
in quantities beyond our immediate need, resulting in overexpenditures on unnecessary 
parts. The existing mechanical meters are more vulnerable to vandalism because most of 
them do not have high security parking meter casings and they are not capable of being 
upgraded because the casing is an integral pan of the mechanism. Mechanical meters 
determine valid coins by size only, resulting in a large number of foreign coins, slugs, 
candies, or tokens that are deposited and provide the user with time. These junk coins are 
a source of lost revenue for the City. The warning flags and displays on a mechanical 
meter are also moving parts, so they are prone to failure, leading to lost revenue from 
tickets that are not issued and tickets that are issued improperly to users who paid for 
time on the meter. The display on the mechanical meters is difficult for the public and 
enforcement officers to read and prone to wear and ultimately failure as the pans become 
old. Mechanical meters cannot provide Parking and Traffic with any information on the 
amount of money deposited, length of parking time, or any other data that would be 
useful to help the City maximize the use of its scarce parking resources. Mechanical 
meters have no capability to manage the electronic cash card systems that are currently 
being tested by the Bay Area's transit operators. The movement from coins to electronic 
cash could save the City money in reduced collections of coins and lower coin counting 
and transponation costs. To change a rate or accept different types of coins on a 
mechanical meter, repairers must replace pans inside the meter, which requires the 
purchase of additional supplies and many hours of labor to complete Mechanical meters 
are not capable of being set for multiple rates dependent on time of day. 

Electronic meters have no moving parts, so they do not need continuous adjustment and 
are not vulnerable to the type of wear that affects mechanical meters. If a pan is damaged 



41S) 554-PARK FAX (415) 554-3834 



25 Van No»» Av«nuo, Suite 410 
71 



San Frunclsco. CA 94102-4G76 



APR. - 25 02 iTHU) 16 48 CITY i CO. OF SF PARKING DEPT. TEL: 55498 1 4 Attachment I- 



— ^age 3 oi G 

Parking M eter Management Svstem 

~ Page 2 



ZlTtf ' V* rem ° Ved ^ r£plaCed The tlmin S mechanism is a quanz 
clock, so it is extremely accurate. Electronic meters recognize coins by their metal 
composition, not just their size, and have the ability to accept multiple coin 
denominations. Foreign corns, slugs, and candies will no longer provide depositors with 
tone on the meter. The display on an electronic meter is prominent and easT* toe u » 

red flashing LCD display on the rear and flashing numbers or words on the front when 
expired or show how much time is left on the meter. Electronic meters col ect 
information as they are used, providing Parking and Traffic with a way to validate the 

SSKSST " d6P0Slt r d " ^ met6r Wth thG am ° Unt ^ mone/colle t d y he 
brtaAo T C ° ntraCt0r , * WUI alS ° a31 ° W Parkm S and Tra ^ to assess parking 
behavior, assess repair needs across the City, and compare meter records With 

SSv wht mr™ WTltinS ' W,t V he reC ° rdS mdntained * the metetJetill know 
reSd The 1^ Went ° Ut ° f S&MCC ' rather than on 'y ^ng when it was 
repaired. The electronic meters will communicate information through a hanrihH, h i 
terminal at the time of collection, making it easier for Parkin : and Traffir ^h 
unreported meter outages and meters J need a baaery^c^^ t0 dlSC ° Ver 

corrosion, which means that they have a battery M 7* be s x morl t to 
electronic meters, the battery connection has been better insulated 2 f££ , ^ u 
one year. While our existing meters collect rlih 1 m5ulated ^ batteries last about 

deposit records with the actual collection. We wou Id have t col Z ,1 m " &l 

different manner from every other m»J in ,k» °" eCI ' neSC mctErs in a 

terminals »nd union « of mth , i llK 1 ^ s,em - us,n « d.fferenl handheld data 

.o .-dSffi^EEESS uhlZ of° 7 d ,0 Uke add "'° nal *« 
higher labor cost for the Citv Th, „!f, of collection, resulting in a 

nan the seciare card Ltd ' a'vmen, sys S° S? me" ?" 1° I" T "* '»' '° 

one type of single-space meter in mven.ory ° Peratl ° nal efficie n«« ot managing only 

^S^ an of toe REP elements, Parking and 

bidder. Parking and Traffic waTS P fn P ° P( f r ' n0t the lowest ™Ponsive 

was askmg for many products and services that did not have a 



Ik 



■mtv t ™ w ^ piq|.'l\r. r.FPT TEL: 55498H Attac hment I- 

25' 021THU) 16 4? UT\ & CO OF bF PARMM. Lti __ Page 4 oir 6 - 

Parking Meter Management System Page 3 

well-defined standard in the parking industry, so the Request for Proposal was the best 
way for the department to evaluate options from potential bidders. The evaluation 
committee reviewed each proposers response and scored each component separately. The 
evaluation committee selected Serco as the contractor for the three elements of the RFP 
because they proposed in their written submittal and supported in their oral interview the 
best scope of products and services for the City. Serco Management Services has 
extensive experience in project management and outsourcing services. They offered a 
technically superior single space meter that had card technology, extensive memory 
capacity, flexibility with expansion ports, and a superior display that has full word 
messaging capability. The multi-space meter proposed offered similar technical benefits, 
such as full messaging screens and smart card capabilities. The Oracle-based software 
solution they proposed is technologically flexible and robust. The City will own the 
software at the end of development rather than being tied to an equipment manufacturer's 
proprietary software. Serco has experience implementing high security smart card 
systems, like the Translink system we are proposing to adopt. Serco offered an in-depth 
training program for meter repairers, departmental managers, and their own employees. 
Serco's collection and coin counting proposals were well thought out, showing their 
knowledge of the business, their understanding of the importance of training and 
retaining employees, and the logistical needs of running such services for the City. 

Basis of S50 million not to exceed amount of the Serco Contract : Parking and Traffic 
anticipates additional payments through the contract. To protect the City's interest, we 
wanted to guarantee the negotiated terms and conditions, including pricing, would remain 
in place for more than the cost of the initial purchase of equipment and services. The 
Serco contract will be the City's source for purchasing new parking meters, replacement 
parts, and replacement equipment related to the meter system for the next five years. 
With the development of the Mission Bay area and the changing demands on parking 
South of Market, the Department had planned to survey and schedule public hearings 
recommending the addition of parking meters in certain areas. We estimate that we may 
add as many as 5,000 additional metered spaces with the development of Mission Bay, 
which would also generate the need for additional collection and coin counting services. 
All of these future products and services would be paid for through this contract. The 
additional dollar amount in the contract will ensure that the department will have the 
ability to purchase new meter inventory and expand collection and coin counting services 
without having to modify the contract. 

If the not to exceed amount of the contract was lowered and was not sufficient to cover 
the products and services that the City had the approval to purchase, the City would need 
to modify the contract. By opening the contract up to modifications. Serco would have 
the leverage to renegotiate any of the contract terms and conditions, including die pricing. 
Before contract approval, the negotiation leverage lies with the City. After contract 
approval, when the City has already started its purchase of equipment and services, this 
leverage will shift to the contractor. If we need to modify the contract, we will expose the 
City to additional risk from Serco's potential request for renegotiation of contract terms 
and conditions, including pricing for products and services. To make any of the proposed 
parking meter changes or additions, Parking and Traffic would follow its customary 



75 



AFR -25 02 (THI.'l !c 49 CITY k CO. OF SF PARKING CEPT TEL.-55498H 

— Attachment I-B 
Page i of 6 ] 

Parking Meier Management S ystem 

~ — ■ . . Page 4 

public hearing practices and Board of Supervisor's approval process Parkin* ,.t rr 
woula also seek Board of Supervisor approval to annrovp th?, g d TrafflC 

suppcn these contractual costs. The sSS notT^T" ° f funds f ° 
protec: the City's ongmally negotiated terms LdTondUtons ^ " ""** 



76 



APR -24 02 {WE[ 



= 53 CITY k CO OF SF PARKING iF?T 




\ 5 4 Q g ] 4 Attachment I- 
Page 6 ot 6 



City and County of San Francisco 



DEPARTMENT OF PARKING a TRaTf^C 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. Mayor 

FRED M. HAMQUN. EXSCiT VE DIRECTOR 




To: 

From: 

Subject 

Dale: 



MEMORANDUM 

HaiveyRosc, Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Finance 

Timeline and Major Milestones 

Adjusted for New Estimated Contract Award Date 

April 24, 2002 



7^^^^ 



Estimated Date 

Ma^J_0 : _2002_ 
June 10,2002 
200? 
June 10, 2002 



•ervice Plan and Facility Security 



■ — . ^^ h' gfgua L'em 

J^izern ept Sys_t em 

Completion of Phase II, P^dnTMeTeT 

J^riagerj^entj^tem 





,1 5)5 M .PAKK FAX ,415) 354.9834 



25 Van No*s Avenuo, SuKo 410 
77 



QPP-?A—z>a "•■:• 



San Francisco, CA 9410?~lSr 6 



Attachment II 



5iS 8 
o c o 



OOCOCDOOOOTr^O'^OCOmO'^-OO 

ooc~-coococD-*rmoaoor--r*--incD-'3-cD 
oocncoor--0'5TOOr-i-^^r->3-aoooh-T- 



C C/> 



c E 



TfQS'JOOWO 



■q- o o -^i- o co o 



c*3c\iinaoc\iT-c\icN 

r~- CM i- r~- CN CO CD 



o in cd co 



O CD O CO -q- 01 



1 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
a 


a 

o 

o 


in in 
in id 


o in 

O CN 

O r- 


in i- 

CN 


•*- o o 

o o 
o ,_ 


cn 


in 

CI 


CN 


CN 




O 

in 




m 

CN 



o o m o o 
o o cn o o 



ro ra (^ 

o. C -/I 

in it gi 

cd ao " 



E > 



E £ U J 



^: o u 



= c — 



o — CJ 

E "> S 

- Ill N 



CL 2 


»7 


c_: = 






r: 


-.- 






u 


c : 


<u o 




c"!-- 


CD 




93 


Q H 




uj v; 


u 


lil 


._• 



a) a o ci 

CD CD <D 2 

E E E a. 

CD CD CD "0 

o o o i= 

iH CD CO & p. 

» D. Q. C O 

Q « »1 »1 Bl 

O CO « ™ ■— 

cd <u ^ =3 ^ E 

^ Q S .2 2 V) 



c CD 

cd c 
E M 



m j S | ^ 



— o 



CO CO JO CD CJ 

C C ro E 'c 

co cd o o co 

£ jC ; >:£ 

O U h- o CJ 

CD CD Q CD 

£ E a. <u 

CD CD CD CD CD 

CO CO CO CO CO 

a a a a c. 

<S> <J) <S) V) <Si 



t- CD 

CD CT) 

in cn 

*- cd" 

CD CN 



CD CD 
cd" CT>" 



CD_ O 
CD" CT>" 



O U 



E 2 



£ .91 

CD ^ 

in O 



78 



n i_ Lett, uiueu l. x i i. 



CD 
CD 

in 


O) 


o 




cc 


o 

o 
o 


CM 


CO 


■CO 

cm 


pi 

CO 


CO 
CO 
CM 


CM 

en 




in 



r- r*- co co 



O CI CO 



CN O O tO 
O O O CO 



O O t- 



CM O CN 



CN O O T 
O O O CO 

cn o r-- co 



r- O O 



CM O CM tO 



i- CO t- 



r-~ cm o 



T" CO V 



o o o co 



CO 


en 


in 


o 


^- - 


CM O 


cn 01 


in' 


CN CN 


m 






CO 


01 


a> cn 


CN CO 


o 


CN CN 






T " 


o 


■*" 


o 
m 


(0 


CO 


in m 



■4- CN CO 

CO CO CO 

CO* CO* t-~ 

CT t- i- 



o o o tn 
CM o r- CM 



■<- co •>- 



CM O CM CM 

O CM CM N- 



CM O O CO 
O O O CO 
CM O N- CO 



oa 


o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


m 


N- 


CO 




CO 


C3 


CM 


CN 


CO 


CO 



CN O CM CO 



O O i- 



CN O O O CO 

o o o m o 
cn o r^ co t- 



m 


r>- 


eo 


r- 


<o 


n 


CN 


(O 


o> 


c> 


eo 


o 








CO 




u 


m 


CO 


CN 


o 


«- 


m 


a> 




o 












T- 


TT 


*- 


CN 



cr 

" E 



,_ c ra am o 

S o • ". « -s 

s " 1 1 © s 

o 6 t--" S c -j 

O O t- „ "> 

S = © f S. £ 

9. !" -r = n * 



d, c </) i- «. 



_ _ £ CL TO 
4) 0) 0) CO cz 

zzxrii 



— j — m — 

in C o o V- 



r- o o o «- »■ 5 



79 



rTE£r- 



Attachr.ip.nt IV 



m CO O CM C O <N 
C — O — O C n 

ifl t- o tN O CN O 



en r*- n a 



s n to D 
' a n i- 



e£ 






E 5 
I- >* 



° 5 E 

ill 

a-* s 

"U T3 o 

a q. h- 



ct m o h- k- 



C OJ o fJ 
cn* cm* 



tM C O O 

O o C «o 

OJ O r~ CN 



IN 5 



o cc cn 00 



« DC fl 

o a o a 
cm c f- CN 



o. o cn t- 



3 3 S 

CT O rt 



(M T C 






•— 


(D 


CN 


n 


o 


CI 


UJ 


CI 


I > 


c 


3 




UT 


OJ 




o 




r~ 




ia 


OJ 


n 


<N 


pj 


o 


OJ 


en 




O, 




«■* 


T 




CJ 




s 



3 O 
3 -r- 


en 


a 
to 


oj 
tc 


o 


c 


o 

a 
a 


o 
a 

p. 


10 


5 rj 


OJ 


o 
CD 


CO 


m 


OJ 

o 


o 
q 


a 


CO 
tp 


3 T- 
3 IS. 


pi 
o 




CM 
CO 


o- 


OJ 

o 

OJ 


a 
a 
O 


o 
c 
p- 


N 


3 r~ 


n 


g 


ca 


o 

cc 


en 


o 

OJ 


ol 


S. 



-r r- o 

co_ ci_ 25 

to" en in 

t- p: oj 



2. in £> 

lei 



§ ^"=5 



£ r ^ 

E ? = 



= n " 3 



- £ "n o 

(C — l_ ~ 

cr u. o _j 



m * 

u a 

o — *- 

o cc c 

cj c >- 



80 



APR -IhO'(TIJE) 

^,'15/2002 




!":I5 CUV & CO. OF SF PARKING DE?T TEL55493I 

IS: 22 dlS-;5^-7cf; C2n""t2llES =cz RV3B6 



Attachment: V 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROL. ,ER 



Edward Harrington 
Controller 
April 16, 2C02 

Department c: Parkins & Traffic 
City and County of San Francisco 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Certification of Parking Meter Revenue (New Electronic Parking Meters) 
Deai- Mr. Fred Hamdun: 

The Controller's Office has reviewed parking meter data provided bv the TVrarf™ , t n , • 
Traffic (Depakene] regarding the re4ue impact P ertamL to w£^^ *^^ 
new electrons parking meters throughout the City. Thus letter scn.es as vour D S n 
notification that the Controller's Office has certified a projected revenue 4' a^ t u™ Z 
installation or r.ew electronic meters for an entire year, of 47 percent or S5.9 million per £ar 

Total parking meter revenues for FY 2001-02 were budgeted at S i 3 4. minion v , th „ A .„. 
allocated to MUNI and S5.8 million allocated to the Department of Parkin fand Traffic Art 

we estimate th- actual parking meter revenue for FY 2001-02 will be SP 6 mmion i * T 

S0.8 million or 6 percent less than originally budgeted. U "' ^ W^™^ 

Installing new electronic parking meters appeai-s to address three existing problems that lead to ln« 
parking meter revenue: 1) missing meters. 2) broken meters, and 3) com fh ft fioTrTer B , rH 
the survey and demonstration project data provided by your office the C V^ 

that installing new electronic parking meters could dfartvdy add^ 4^4 " nrnh T''" 

following impact on annual pai-king meter revenues- " pr ° b ' emS *"* ^ 



Parking Meter Problem^ 



1. Reduce the number of missing meters 

2. Reduce the number of broken meters 

3. Reduce the amount of theft from meters 
TOTAL 



% / $ Projected Increase in Revcnue_. 

7.8* -9.7% S0.98- 51.22 niilUon 

14.5%- 16.5% S1.83- $2.08 million 

21^22^ S23^2J6,mon 

44.8%- 49.7% S5.64.S6.26 million 



Based on these neures, we certify that installation of new par'on? meter, «,.,! ,.„c i 

increase in parking meter revenue annually which reoreLm a*4? Zr W * 5 '' 9 miUion 

FY 2001-02 amcunt of $12.6 million. ? **"" ^^ 0ver the P rQ i"ted 

Ir you have ar.y questions regarding the information in this certFcaxia- u*.r • 

Rydstrom(415; 554-4809 or Joe Matranga (41 5)554-7569 n - f ' Ca "°" !e " er ' P» e «e contact Todd 




41S-5S1-7-00 



81 

CUy Hall • i Dr. Csrlian b. Cq, d | ((l p,, t , . Hoon) 3IS . s ,„ Frirc|( 



« Ca wio: 4ti)4 



fax us r " i-7.uti 



rt. L LdUUUItU L VI 



O 

.y & 

«: E 
co o 

►- < 

■a „ 

5 <" 

CO </> 

<? s 

.E a. 



°- ? 
o « 



t > ^ 

Q. CC CO 

a) = C 

Q < rr 



o > 



in in 
cn co 
on co 

»-" CO 



O O O CO 



o 
o 


If] 

CN 


CO 


CO 

a> 


CO 

co 


o 

o 

10 


o 
in 

CO 


co 

CO 


CO 

co 


05 

in 

co 



0) CO 

=> r 
r. o 



CC co a> 



s 13 ? 



~ cj 

o > 



"" >- O 3 

_ U J) » n 

CO — CO — CO Li- o 

Q.5WO h 



= c 



r^ 



*- O «- CD CO 

G) IT) CO O O) 

i- en en CM r~ 

CN Tf" -r-* cd" r~-" 

^f CM O) M O 

CM O «- T tt 



m 


Ol 


N 


in 


CO 


o 


n 


CM 


u ) 




CO 


CO 


ai 


o 


O 


T 


CN 


r- 


CO 


u> 


r~ 


r^ 


o 


CO 


T— 


r>- 


co 


in 


r»- 


CN 


n 


CO 


C) 


t ! 


in 




o 


CM 


CM 


m 


o 


J) 


i" 


Tf 


T 




o 


C) 



T- 


CO 


CO 


t- 


■>r 


(~i 


co 


o 


n 


co 


oo 


CJ) 


in 


( I 


CM 




CD 


o 


o 


en 


CD 


in 


T 


C) 


ID 


«- 


r- 


rv 


o 


in 


r~ 


CM 


co 


CO 


tn 


in 


r-- 


CM 


o 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


01 


-T 


C 1 


C 1 


CM 


(M 


CN 


en 


CD 


co 


r-. 


*— 


tt 


■* 




CJ' 


cc 



o en t r- oo 



CM 

CC 


co 
o 


co en cm 

CD CO CO 


O) 


en 
|v. 


O 


O CD 
O O 


CO 

in 

n 


CO 

a> 

CM 


r~ CO CO 

CM CO T 
CO CD >- 


CO 
CO 
CO 


o 


CM 
CM 


O CO 

cm a> 

O CM 


1- 


1*. 


CO CO V- 








in r~ 



n id ^ n co o oco 

O) i- CM t- Ol O Ott 

in ■>- cd_ en r-_ o_ o_ o_ 

tj- cd cd en rv" in o o" 

n s •* co in ^ om 

■ct m <- n i- cn in r 



o 


o 


CO 


O 


CD 


CM 


,— 


CD 


CI) 


CO 


•»— 


CM 


c> 


e i 


CO 


in 


CM 




(1) 


C) 


o 


^r 


u 


o 


CM 


a 


m 


CM 


O 


CM 


r~ 


CJ) 


m 


r~ 




en 


n 


CO 


r-~ 


CM 


co 


CO 


in 


on 


m 


5 


>" 


en 


C 1 


tT 


'j 


CO 


r~ 


in 


t»i 


n 


in 




u. 


in 


CD 


m 


o 


in 


CO 


if) 


r- 


CN 


*- 



CM 


CO 


CO 


T- 


CD 


(71 


CO 


CJ) 


m 


CM 


•>t 


ID 


o 




co 


o 


in 


CO 


O) 


•* 


CJJ 


in 


■W 


CO 


co 


in 


on 


tT 


C 1 


o 


o 


on 


n 


en 


C ) 


m 


CO 


r^ 


in 


to 


T - 


CN 



ID S ID O ID 
CM O O O O) 



lO C 
CU CD 

<2 cn 



cu c c o 3 co 



c ~ 



.2 .5 O 



i2 w cu c x 



CD 0) 






U UJ 

5 — S £ ro 2 
o ro cu o £ o 

OSuSxflki- 



82 



APR. -16' OliTliE) I 



CITY Sc CO. OF SF PARKING DEP1 



[EL 3549814 



Page I o±. 2 



SAN FHAMCI3C0 



City and County. of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PAflKING i, TRAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN. JR.. Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN, EXECUTiVE ORECTCR 




MEMORANDUM 

To: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

From: Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Financ 

Subj eel: Remaining questions on proposed contract 

Date: Apnl 16,2002 

Here are answers to your remaining questions: 

1 . Why does the Department wish to replace all of the existing meters? 

The Department wishes to replace all of its existing meters for a variety of reasons. All 
meter manufacturers have stopped making mechanical meters. Purchasing replacement 
parts is becoming nearly impossible for some models, such as the POM "S" meter, or 
cost prohibitive because ordering the parts requires a special order with a large minimum 
quantity for each replacement part that we require. We have very few electronic meters 
currently in the field. The Department felt it made sense to have a uniform meter on the 
street. With one type of meter, we could implement a common card system for payment 
(such a system requires special software development inside the meter mechanism), and 
save on replacement parts by maintaining one inventory. We also wished to purchase 
uniform casings that were equipped with an electronic lock that will he connected to the 
meter mechanisms so that data can be transmitted between meter and lock. The data 
transfer will ensure that we can reconcile the data collected by the meter with the coins 
collected, counted, and deposited. Our current inventory of electronic meters does not 
have this capability. 

2. Total Points received by Serco for each RFP Element: 



Element I 


Points | 


Scoce of Work 


374 | 


Pnce 


13 1 


Assigned Staff 


70 I 


Experience of Firm 


106 




Element II 


Points | 


Scodc of Work 


200 | 


Price 


1 81 


Assigned Staff 


1 72 | 



(41!) 5S4-PARK FAX (4", 5) £i4-9B34 



2fi Van Noo» Avonuo, Sullo 410 



S.i'1 Francisco. CA 94102-1S76 



APR. -16 02 (TL'E) 16:2: 



CUV k CO. OF SF PARKING CEPT. 



: -5 4 9 8 14 Attachment VII 

Page 2 or Z 



Follow up Questions 



Page 2 



ExDenence of Firm 



106 



Element III Points 


Scooe of Work 80 


Price 6 


Assigned Staff 51 


Experience of Firm S3 



Overall, the purpose of selecting services and equipment through a Request for 
Proposal Process is to minimize the emphasis on price and focus on the quality of the 
products and services proposed. The Purchasing Department, in consultation with 
DPT, developed the allocation of points in the evaluation criteria of the RFP. 

Electronic parking meters are more like computers than their older mechanical 
counterparts. As a result, problems with quality control in manufacturing or serious 
limitations in the technology, such as memory capacity, and expandability for the 
future with additional data ports, become important elements in trying to select the 
best product on the market. When DPT field tested the electronic meters it had bought 
through its low bid contract, it had sudden and unexplained problems with battery life 
that were traced to faulty circuit boards, all of which needed to be replaced. Since the 
purchase of parking meters is a long term investment that generates revenue that 
supper: public bonds, the Municipal Railway, and a portion of DPT's operational 
expenses, DPT wanted to emphasize technical superiority over price. 

Collection and Coin Counting Services also benefit from an emphasis on service over 
price. DPT's prior experience with collection service requests were selected by low 
bid have been negative. The contract was difficult to manage; service was poor, and 
the contractor paid low wages to its employees and suffered high employee turnover. 
We also had repeated problems with theft by the contractor's employees. 

Due to the certification of increased revenue from the Controller's Office, the 
replacement of all of the parking meters can be covered with revenue from the 
meters. As a result, the Mayor's Office asked DPT to develop the project budget 
without using the SI. 6 million currently on reserve. At the end of the fiscal year, this 
amount of money will be closed out and used to benefit the General Fund. 



(415) 554-PARX FAX (415) SS4-8834 



20 Van Naas Avonuu, Sul'.o 410 

84 



San Francisco, 



APR. -I9'02(FRI 



CITY k CO. OF SF PARKING 3E?1 



TEL 5;^$N 



Attachment VIII 
Page 1 of 7 



SAN FRAN CISCO 




City and County of San Francisco 



DEPARTMENT OP PARKING £ TRAFE.C 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN. JR.. .Mayor 

FRED M. HAWDUN, EXECUTIVE ORECTOR 



To: 
From: 
Subject: 
Dare: 



MEMORANDUM 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Finance 

Parking Meter Request for Proposal History 

Apnl 19, 2002 



Or, May IS, 1999 the Purchasing Department on behalf of the Denartment of Parkin" 
and Tramc issued an RFP for a Parking Meter Management System The RFP w a - 
advernsea in the official City newspaper. In addition, the Purchasing Department sent the 
RFP to companies that had requested it. Purchasing and the Department of Paridre and 
Traffic issued five change notices. Final proposals were due to me City on J^ " 00 0. 

The Department of Parking and Traffic received nine responsive proposals The RFP 
conlanaed three elements: 1) single and multi-space parking meters, Lings decSf 

SSr^SS? eqUipmem ' ******* *™™> 2) -venue^l lection 

of Thet'™ } 1 T mmg Se ™ CeS " Vend ° r3 C ° Uld dedde t0 submit P»poal« for any 

of the tnree proposal elements. The evaluation criteria were as follows For Ehm-nt tl 

scope ox work was given 450 points, the price proposal 30 points, assigned stfso 
points, and experience of firm 120 points. For Element II, tne scone ofWrk wi Ln 
200 points, the price proposal 10 points, assigned staff 80 points "and expend affl 
120 porno. For Element III, the response to scope of work was givt 100 pom s" Sl e 
P-eproposa, 10 points, the assigned staff 80 points, and the e^ncLnZut 

The evaluation committee consisted of the following individuals: 



_Name 
Julia Dawson 
George Reynolds 

Steve 3eil 
Adrienne Frazier 
Russell Driver 



Title 



Deputy Director 
Parking Meter and Machine 
Shop Manager 
Contract Administrator 
Meter Collections Manager 
Translink Project Manager 



Agency 



Parking and Traffic 
Parking and Traffic 

Parking and Traffic 
Parking and Traffic 
Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission 



«13)554-PA«K FAX (4151 554-9834 



•13-20Q2 



25 Von Macs Avonuo, Sutto 410 

85 



Son Francisco. CA B4102-U7 



'PR. -1?' 02IFRII 14 59 CITY fc CO. OF SF PARKING DE?i 



TEL 5549314 Pa ge 1 of. / 



Parkins Meter RF? Summary 



Paee 2 



The noints each DroDosal received from the first round of scoring was as follows: 



Element I: Parking Meters 
Proposer 



Score 



Serco Management Services 


5S0 


Duncan 


468 


Worldwide Parking 


434 


Central Parking 


360 


Intellipark 


183 


Reinhardt 


140 


Medeco 


99 


Dunbar 


Did not sue 


On Street 


Did not sut 



Did not submit a proposal for this element 
Did not submit a proposal for this element 



Element II: Collection Services 

Proposer Score 

Serco 

Worldwide Parking 

On Street 

Dunbar 

Central Parking 

Duncan 
Intellipark 
Reinhardt 
Medeco 

Element HI: Coin Counting 



Proposer 



Worldwide 
Dunbar 
Serco 
Central 

Intellipark 
Reinhardt 
Medeco 



402 

249 
201 
151 
130 

Did not submit a proposal for this element 
Did not submit a proposal for this element 
Did not submit a proposal for this element 
Did not submit a proposal for this element 



Score 



212 
191 
189 
115 

Did not submit a proposal for this element 
Did not submit a proposal for this clement 
Did not submit a proposal for this element 



86 



>R.-19'02(FRI] 14:59 CITY k CO. OF S? PARKING DEFT. TEL:554?8M g^ge 3 ot / 
Parkins: Meier REP Summary Pa g e 3 



The Evaluation Committee selected the top three proposers for each element for 
interviews. The resulting scores for each element were as follows: 

Element I: Parking Meters 

Proposer Score 

Serco Management Services 563 

Duncan 506 

Worldwide Parking 460 

Element II: Collection Services 

Proposer Score 

Serco 386 

Worldwide Parking 249 

On Street was contacted for an interview and did not respond to our invitation. 

Element III: Coin Counting 

Proposer Score 

Serco 220 

Worldwide 217 

Dunbar 214 

The proposer with the lowest cost was awarded the highest points for the cost proposal. 
However, other evaluation criteria, such as the scope of work and experience of firm, 
were given more weight in the RFP evaluation criteria. 

The proposal submitted by Serco Management Service;, Inc. proposed a number of 
different subcontractors. MacKay will be providing the single space parking meters. 
Reino win be providing the multi-space meters, and Medeco will be providing the 
electromechanical lock as a subcontractor of MacKay. In addition, Serco has prorjosed to 
contract out the installation services to General Engineering. 



R7 



VfA. -l» Uilrjil) 



CITY S: CO. Of S? PARKING DE.-T. 



TEI 5 5 s ° 8 ■ a Attachment VIII 
Page 4 pf 7 




•8 -24 o: 



TV k CO OF SF PARKING Dt? 



so-,? sm 



Page 5 of 7 



Contract Proposal No. 75420 
Bidder List 



Duncan industries Parking 
Control System 
340 Industrial Park Road 
Harrison, AR 7260 
Fax(870) 741-2868 
Tel(870) 741-5841 



J.J. MacKay 
Attn: Johnny Waldo 
695 Hickey MTRLP 
London, AR 72837 
Fax(501) 293-4022 
Tel(501)293-4022 

Serco Managemetn Services, Inc 

Attn: Tim Sanocki 

2200 Jen-old Ave., Unit M 

San Francisco, C A 94124 

Tel(415)-285-5046 



Loomis Fargo and Company 

Attn: Maura R. Dugan 

1060 Marin Street 

San Francisco, C A 94103 

Fax:648-1304 

Tel: 821-0687 

.Armed Courier Services 
Attn: Dan Connelly 
855 Civic Center Drive S?5 
Santa Clara, CA 95050 
Tel((408)241-0910 
Fax(408) 241-0996 



On Street Technology 

Attn: Mike Inouye 

15050 Avenue of Signs, Ste. 210 

San Diego, CA 95128 

Fax(619)674-8433 

Tel(619)674-8430 



J.J. MacKay 

Attn: Dave Delaney 

1342 Abercombie Road 

P.O. Box 338 

New Glason, Nova Scotia 

Canada B2H5E3 

Fax(902)422-810S 

Tel(902) 423-7727 

POM, Inc 
Attn: Kevin Dawe 
200 S. ElmiraAve. 
Russelville, AR 72801 
Fax(501) 968-2840 
Tel(800)33 1-7275 

Medeco High Security Locks 

Attn: Mike Lumpkin 

3625 Alleghney Drive 

P.O. Box 3075 

Salem, Virginia 241 53-0330 

Fax(540)380-1637 

Tel(800)675-7558 

Brinks Incorporated 

Attn: K.C. White 

3775 Alameda Ave., Suite A 

Oakland, CA 94601 

Fax(51O)535-4510 

Tel(510)535-4523 

Kaba High Security Corporation 

Attn: Thomas J. Divito 

384 Old Turnpike Road 

P.O. Box 490 

Southington, CT 06489-0490 

Fax(860)621-4727 

Tel(860)621-3601 X123 



Lockheed Martin IMS 
Attn: George Ware 
1133 15* Street NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Tel(202)756-5600 
Fax(202)756-5817 



J.J. MacKay Canada LTD. 
Attn: Gregory Chauvin 
953 Barrington St., Suite 302 
Halifax, Nova Scotia 
Fax(902)422-S108 



Serco Management Srvcs., Inc. 
Attn: Mike Walker 
20 East Clementon Rd. 
Gibbsboro, NJ 08026 
Fax(609)346-S463 
Tel(609)346-S800 

Knox Company 

Attn: Gordon Skotarczyk 

17672 Armstrong Ave. 

Irvine, CA 92614-5728 

Fax(714)671-1114 

Tel(714)671-1756 



Dumbar Armored 
Attn: Rosemary Ayala 
629 Wnitney Street 
San Leandro, CA 94577 
Fax(5 10) 569-7498 
Tel (510) 569-7400 

Fleet Corporate Adminisrrat:on 
Corporate Strategy and 
Development 
Attn: AlanD. Pease 
Mail Stop: MA OF D02A 
One Federal Street 
Boston, MA 02110 
Fax(617)346-0465 

Lockheed Martin IMS 
Attn: Man Silverman 
300 Frank W. Burr Blvd. 
Teaneck, NJ 07666 
Fax(201) 239-9630 
Tel(201) 996-7070 



89 



-24 02 (WED ) K> 



CI TV k CO OF SF PARKING DE? 



J549S I h Attachment VIII 

Page 6 of 7 



Lockheed Martin IMS 

Attn: Rona Schmidt 

One Daniel Bumham Ct., Ste 400 

San Francisco, CA 94901 

Fax(41 5)771-4601 

Tel(415) 674-7835 



Reinhardt USA 
Attn: Patrick Ryan 
2625 Polk Street, Suite 2 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
Fax447-7415 



Maas Hamilton 

Attn: Jerry Dawson 

8040 New Town Circle 

Lexington, KY 40522 

Fax(606)253-474S 

Tel: 1-800-950-4744x203 

Bank of America 

Attn: Lisa Kishkian 

201 Third Street, 4'-" 1 Floor 

CA5 504 01 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Fax(415)436-5817 

Philadelphia Parking Authority 
Attn: Rina Culter 
3101 Market Street 
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2807 
Fax(21 5)683-971 2 



CellNet Data Systems 
Attn: Terese Geary 
125 Shoreway Road 
San Carlos, CA 94070 
Fax(650)592-6858 



Sun West Sales Co. 
Attn: Annlo Amador 
8128 CapwellDr. 
Oakland, CA 94621 
Fax (510)569-7281 
Tel (5 10) 569-6408 



City of Boston 

Office of the Parking Clerk 

Attn: Bruce Graubart 

Boston City Hall, Room 224 

Boston, MA 02201 

Fax (617) 635-4422 



Wells Fargo Bank 
Cash Control Services 
Attn: Ramona Sabelhaus 
605 Third Street, Suite 200 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Fax:777-2606 

US Chipcard Products 

Martercard 

Attn: Michael Tempora 

2000 Purchase Street 

Purchase, NY 10577-2509 

Fax(9 14)249-42 12 

PRWT Services, Inc. 

Attn: Patty Jo Rutland 

One Daniel Burnham Ct., Ste 

400 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Fax(41 5) 202-0792 

Tel(415) 674-7820 

Capital Transporation 
Attn: Joe Shaw 
1 130 Connecticut Ave., N\V 
Washington, DC 20036 
Tel.(202) 728-6700 
Fax(202) 728-1023 

Centennial Distributors, Inc. 
Attn: Romy Sonano 
3176 17"' Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Fax (415) 861-8947 
Tel(415) 861-1676 



Parking Concepts, Inc. 
Attn: Barry Schneider 
651 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Fax(4 15) 29 1-0345 
Tel(415)956-3789 

90 



Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission 
Attn: Russell Driver 
Joseph P. Bon Metrocenter 
101 Eight Street 
Oakland, CA 94607-4700 
Fax (510)464-7848 

Central Parking System 
Ann: K. Shin 
100 First St., Suite 120 
San Francisco, CA 94105f 
Fax(415) 597-4875 
Tel(41 5)597-4870 

BidNet 

10A Railroad Ave. 

Albany, NY 12205 



Muni Card Technology, In.c 
Attn: Peter Gilbourne 
76 Ocean Ave., Suite 1111 
Revere, MA 02151 
Fax(703) 803-2168 



GSC 

Attn: Jeff 

4S5 Bayshore Blvd. Suite 3 

San Francisco, CA 94124 



Intellimeter 

Attn: Kathleen Bolser 

130 Connecticut Ave NW 

Ste.800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Fax(202)72S-1023 

Tel(202)263-020S 

Motorola 

Attn: David Gross 

1980 Carroll Canyon Road 

San Diego, CA 92131 

Fax(6l9) 549-3695 

Tel(6l9) 530-8426 



\?R -2h 32IWED) 10 '■' C I TV i CO. OF SF PARKIVj JtP. • -- 5:>:-bH ]? a ge / ot / 



Golden Gate Tech Leemah Electronics, Inc. VISA USA 

Ann: John CardevE.s/ Attn: Wan en Gee Ann: Liz Famsworth 

Greg Flowers 10S8 Sansome Street S25 South Grant St., Ste. 900 

1 809 Sabre Street San Francisco, CA 94111 San Mateo, CA 94402 

Hayward, CA Fax(41 5) 433-2560 Fax(650)432-lS91 

Fax(5l0)7S6-3277 Tel(41 5) 394-1288x212 Tel(650)432-2 1 S3 

Tel(510)785-5720 

Mike Inouye and Associates S.F. Department of Agriculture 

Attn: Michael J. Inouye Weights and Measures #70 

11625 Buford Street Attn: Sid Baker 

Cemtos, CA 90703 501 Cesar Chavez, Suite 109-A 

Fax(562)924-5597 San Francisco, CA 

Tel(562)924-5597 Fax(41 5)285-8776 



91 



Attachment IX 
Page 1 ot 8 




92 



Attachment IX 
Page 'I ot 8 




93 



Si ■- 



U 



'= u 



fa 



■ Page 3 of 8 



c_Bffl3 <u ^ ^Bj c_ 



>. «2 



= 1 " 



^c 



3: E 



5' 



5 

z 



1 1 



94 



Attachment IX - 
Vag-e 4 of 8 




95 



nLLdLtlllieUL -LA 

Page b o± 8 



»> — — 



u - 









:- 
Q 






S 
7 

5 * 



*r 



=y = 



._ *~ 



>^ >, >, >, 



o 



?l 






a 

3 o 



o w 

" J 

— CC 
«j _£; 
U CO 






s 



96 



- a.*_ LUU<r LL L_ J_^V 



Page 6 ot 8 



^> — 

o — 

— es 



s u 
Si >> 



& E 



o 



o! 



en C/1 



\ai c£ 



cp£ 



s 



* 



c 



5 



t) p 



p eo g 



-. — _ 
pB o 

X — 



u « 



,5 o 



n 


U 






tn 


U 


c 


u 










c 








fc 


_r^ 


W 


— 



to 



o 8 



C O 



5 iE 

4J U 



o 



E o 



5- =4 

Q £ 



97 



Page 7 of 8 




98 



Page 8 ol 8 





ng 
















>-» 5 a 










C 


Bj c 


c 


C5 .II ■*! 


I ~ 


3 


C3 


c: 




3 


■ c - 






















ej «~ «T" 


■ "H. 


c 


~ 


"c_ 






H ~ 7 — 


p. 














i| 








■ c 












c 


^U Kl 


1 o 


c 


c 


c 




o 


m o 


o 


■ u 


o 


o 


o 




o 


■ u 


o 




















<y >-i. 


















= u 


1 en 


to 


as 


C/l 




'■" 


I en 


en 


■ u 


u 


u 


cu 




o 


■ U 


U 




■ >. 


>. 


> 1 


>. 






■ >. 


>i 


CS ~" 






















u 


















u 




































ft. s 

— - 


■ > 


> 


> 


> 




N 


MX 


X 


tf £ 


M — 


— 


— 


— 




*■" 


1 ~ 


— 


SJ 


















K 




































u 






















































o 






















































CU 


















> 




































CU 


















•a 


















o 




































en 


















C 


















« 




















eu 
















c 


i_ 






























i— 
















CU 


0) 

fa 














en 
O 
C 

O 


ha 
















0J 
















CU 










E5& 




CU 


















s 










nl 




~ 


CJ1 




c 

09 












a 


^SSE! 


•^ 




en 










en 


•— 

o 


f ■ u 


U 

o 

c 

p 




ca 


1 


• an 


en 

'c 

C3 


o 


1 ° 


u 




C 
> 








CU 




£ 






1 o 


CO 

CO 




u 

«3 


P 


s 

s 


r3M 


cu 


V3 


















<u 




c 






. — 


S 




o 


C 


■w 


CD 


s 




c 


c 
2 


■ 09 

3 C 

% i 

^ o 


fSffl '" 


c5 








Tj 




r: 




2 •■ ■- 


p 




•; 


1J 


CU 

E 

c 




- 

o 


M 


1 

■£ 




'— 


en 

en 
5 


It? 


' • 


a 

s 


■ 
)9l 


r s 


r«s 






."_) 


u 
u 


u 


C 
u 


O 




^ 
1 


U 


CJ 

o > 

LvG 


LJ! 






?»a 


n 


c 
u 


£ 


u 





3 C 


75 


a 


•_ 
U 







99 



A r K- - 1 - i;- If it! I lo:>»o LIN £. i.u. ur -'! i •-»»«■ 



SAN FRANCISCO 



City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PAHKINQ • TRAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M. HAMOUN. ESEClTTiVS DIRECTOR 



To: 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 



MEMORANDUM 



Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 
Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Fin 
Meter Purchasing in Other Cities 
April 12, 2002 



The Budget Analyst has asked if any other cities have entered into a contract like the one 
we have proposed. To DPT's knowledge, the only City that has ever issued a Request for 
Proposal with a similar scope of products and services is Washington DC. They issued a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) in February 1997. In their proposal, they requested proposers 
to convert the City's 15,500 meters to electronic ones. The RFP also included installation, 
financing for all of the equipment provided, maintenance, meter collection, coin 
counting, and deposit of revenue. In 1997, Washington DC awarded a seven year contract 
to Lockheed Martin EMS. To support all of the equipment and services provided, 
Lockheed Martin IMS receives 30% of the revenue collected. According to Washington 
DC, the City collects about 5 12 million per year. 

Most cities are required to purchase equipment, such as parking meters, by low bid. Local 
purchasing regulations do not permit many cities to combine products and services under 
oneRF?. 



(413) 5S4-PAHK FAX (41 S) 354-9634 



25 Van NMe Avtnuo, Suit* 410. 
100 



San Francisco, CA 94102-437 



Attachment XI 
Page I oT 2 




Municipal Transportation Agency 
Citv and Countv of San Francisco 




To: 

From: 

Date: 
Subject: 



Anna LaForte 

Budget Analyst's Office 

Virginia Harrington 

Deputy General Manager, Finance & Administration 

April 24, 2002 

Questions regarding DPT's Proposed Parking Meter Management 
Contract 



This memorandum responds to your questions regarding the proposed Department of 
Parking & Traffic (DPT) parking meter management contract with Serco. Your questions 
and our responses are shown below. 

1) Why can't Muni continue to provide coin counting services? 

DPT has indicated that they need additional coin counting capacity above and beyond the 
level currently provided. Given the increased coin counting requirements identified, 
Muni's Revenue Section lacks the physical space and equipment required to fulfill this 
function. In order to continue the coin counting function in FY2002/03, Muni would 
need to upgrade equipment, and remodel and expand the physical space available at the 
Processing Center, which would be extremely difficult at the existing facility. This 
would also increase the cost to DPT of its work order to Muni. 

At this stage, with the "Translink" electronic fare card undergoing a pilot program 
throughout the Muni Metro system, it would not be pmdent for Muni to make a 
substantial investment in additional coin counting technology or facilities. Muni will 
reassess its Revenue Section facility and equipment requirements as the Translink pilot 
program progresses. 

2) Would Muni absorb the three positions in the Revenue Division into Muni's 
annual operating budget? Why? What is the clear benefit to keeping these positions 
at Muni if DPT's parking meter coin counting services are contracted out to Serco? 

The Municipal Transportation Agency adopted a balanced FY2002/03 operating budget 
request, which has been submitted to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. The 
budget request incorporates the elimination of the coin-counting services that are 
currently provided to DPT. 



101 



Page 2 of 2 



Municipal Transportation Agency 
City and County of San Francisco 



Specifically, Muni's FY2002/03 budget request deleted the S2 12,000 in work order 
funding that Muni has previously received from DPT. Muni deleted funding for two 
Revenue Section positions (job classification 9110), which had been funded from the 
DPT w ork order. 

A third supervisory position (job classification 9116), which also had been funded from 
the DPT work order, has been reassigned to the Revenue Section's Field Unit, which is 
responsible for collecting fare revenue from vehicle fare boxes and subway stations, and 
delivering the revenue to the Revenue Center. That Unit previously had been 
understaffed. In addition, Muni has been able to reduce the Revenue Section's 
FY2002/03 overtime budget by moving this position back to the Field Unit. The funding 
for that position has been identified within Muni's FY2002/03 "base budget." The base 
budget includes only the amount of General Fund support required by formula under 
Proposition E (adopted in 1999), which created the Municipal Transportation Agency. 

3) 'Why wouldn't Muni's budget be reduced? If it would be reduced, then by how 
much? 

As indicated in the response to Question 2, in its FY2002/03 budget request, Muni 
eliminated the 5212,000 in funding associated with the DPT work order for coin 
counting, and deleted funding for two of the three positions that had been associated with 
the work order. 

Please let me know if you have any other questions. 



Laura Spanjian 
Christine Ruiz 



102 



tin fc CO .)f SF PARKING C£?i 




DEPARTMENT OF P a R K ; ,^ -^7 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN Jr. W; , wnr 



TEL: 55498] 4 

Attachment XII 

City and County of San Francisco 




To; 

From: 

Subject: 



MEMORANDUM 



Currently, 
Oepartme: 
September 

this initial 
advertised 
the Contra 
performed 



Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Fina^ 

Meter Collection Contract 
A pnl 12, 2002 



Serco Management Services L f ' 

* of Parking and Traffic (DPI) ^coSctiW^ ^ collecti °ns for the 
». 1997, with the original term extern' T "* W2S awarded 
contract was SO 338 <?Lr u eXtendln § t0 August 31, 2000 The nnV 
»~* , s P^P^^nc meter collert^ x;, pncmg on 

and awarded on the basis of the lowest bid rS C ° mraCt Wa5 ^'^lly 

tier's Office certified that at the D ™ JT P ' C ° ,Iected - In Aonl 1997 

- a ^er co, *an WOrk pfi^^ se^c,^ 

SSr 1 ^?? D ^^ ^ ^ssrs? 2oqi - dpt ^sted 



15,55 ^ARK FAX (,15, j. 



^-12-2QQ2 



23 Van >J „ Avenu» , Sulto , 
103 



s « Francco. CA 94102-la 



CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

DEPARTMENT: Parking and Traffic 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Parking meter collection and coin counting 

CONTRACT PERIOD: 2002-2007 

(1 ) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

Meter collection: San Francisco Tax Collector's Office 
Coin counting: San Francisco Municipal Railway 

(2) How manv City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 

> 

Meter collection: None 

Coin counting: According to the manager of MUNI's revenue section, they will readily absorb the three 
positions currently assigned to the coin counting programs and no layoffs will be necessary as a result of 
contracting out for these services. 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
N/A 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent of services to be contracted out? 

Meter collection: The DPT contract manager (1844 Sr Management Asst.) spends 75% of her time 

overseeing collection activities. 

Coin counting: The DPT contract manager spends 25% of her time overseeing coin counting activities. 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an ongoing request for 
contracting out? 

Meter collections have been contracted out since 1978. Both meter collections and coin counting will be 
ongoing requests for contracting out. 

(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each subsequent 
year? 

The collection contract was originally certified in 1978 and has been certified at each contract rebid. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

MEE/WBE compliance is not required because the contract exceeds $10 million. However, the contractor 
is in compliance with the department's action plan. 

(8) Does the proposed contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 
Yes. 

(9) Does the prcposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same benefits 
provided to employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed contractor comply with the 
Domestic Partners ordinance? 

The contractor has been certified by HRC as being in compliance with the domestic partners ordinance. 

(10) Does the prcposed contractor pay meet the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance 7 

Yes 

Department Representative: Julia Dawson 
Telephone Number: 554-9823 
104 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 02-0615 

Department: Mayor's Office of Community Development (MO CD) 

Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Item: Resolution approving the FY 2002-2003 Community 

Development Program, and authorizing the Mayor, on 
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to accept 
and expend (a) the City's FY 2002-2003 Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement from the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
(b) Program Income up to $33,722,231 which includes 
indirect costs of $160,000; and approving expenditure 
schedules for recipient departments and agencies for 
indirect costs. 

Description: Refer to the Budget Analyst's separate report of May 1, 

2002 on the FY 2002-2003 Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) Program. 



BO ARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

105 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 11 - File 02-0616 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Grant Period: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Resolution approving the FY 2002-2003 Emergency Shelter 
Grants Program and expenditure schedule and authorizing 
the Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San 
Francisco, to accept and expend a $879,000 entitlement 
under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the 
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

$879,000 

Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) 

July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 

The HUD Emergency Shelter Grants Program was first 
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act in July of 1987. The program is designed to 
assist in (a) improving the quality of existing emergency 
shelters for the homeless, (b) making available additional 
emergency shelters, and (c) meeting the costs of operating 
emergency shelters. The goal of the program is to provide 
certain essential social services to homeless individuals so 
that those persons have access to the support services 
needed to improve their situations. 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) is 
responsible for administering and monitoring the 
Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESGP). Funds from 
the ESGP are budgeted under five categories which include 
three program categories (Essential and Social Services, 
Maintenance and Operating Expenses and Homeless 
Prevention Services) and two other categories (MOCD 
administration and the Emergency Shelter Pool). MOCD 
proposes to allocate grant funds in the amount of $879,000 
from the FY 2002-2003 ESGP grant (which is $92 less than 
the FY 2001-2002 ESGP allocation of $879,092) to (a) 17 
non-profit organizations for projects in the three program 
categories noted above, Ob) MOCD administrative costs, and 
(c) the Emergency Shelter Pool. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would (a) authorize the 
MOCD to accept and expend the FY 2002-2003 Emergency 
Shelter Grant and (b) approve the FY 2002-2003 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Emergency 
schedule. 



Shelter Grants Program and expenditure 



Budget: 



The proposed summary budget for the ESGP allocation of 
$879,000 is as follows: 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

from FY 

2001-2002 

Budget 


American Red Cross 


$68,000 


$68,000 


$ 


Asian Women's Shelter 


56,000 


56,000 


- 


Catholic Charities/ St. Joseph's Village 


25,000 


25,000 


- 


Central City Hospitality House 


15,000 


15,000 


. 


Compass Community Services 


50,000 


50,000 


- 


Dolores Street Community Services 


48,000 


48,000 


- 


Episcopal Community Services 


40,000 


40,000 


- 


Friendship House Association 


36,900 


36,900 


- 


Hamilton Family Center, Inc. 


50,000 


50,000 


- 


La Casa de las Madres 


77,300 


77,300 


. 


Larkin Street Youth Center 


54,000 


54,000 


. 


Metropolitan Community Foundation 


47,000 


47,000 


- 


MOCD Administration (5%) 


44,042 


43,950 


(92) 


Bar Association of San Francisco/ 
Volunteer Legal Services Program 


60,000 


60,000 




San Francisco Eviction Defense 
Collaborative 


25,000 


25,000 




San Francisco League of Urban 
Gardeners (SLUG)/ Bayview Safe 
Haven 


28,250 





(28,250) 


St. Vincent de Paul Society 


20,000 


20,000 


- 


Swords to Plowshares 


38,600 


38,600 


- 


United Council of Human Services 


96,000 


96,000 


- 


Emergency Shelter Pool 





28.250 


28,250 


Total 


$879,092 


$879,000 


($92) 



Attachment I, provided by MOCD, contains the ESGP FY 
2001-2002 budget and FY 2002-2003 proposed budget. 
Attachment II, provided by MOCD, contains a list, 
including descriptions, of the above programs. Funding for 
MOCD administrative costs, which is 5 percent of total 
costs, decreased from $44,042 in FY' 2001-2002 to $43,950, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

107 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



a decrease of $92. The Budget Analyst's review of the 
MOCD Administration budget is included in File 02-0615. 

The Emergency Shelter Pool, which did not receive ESGP 
funds in FY 2001-2002, would receive ESGP funds in the 
amount of $28,250 in FY 2002-2003. The Emergency 
Shelter Pool would be available for emergency shelter and 
homeless services most likely to be required during the 
winter months. 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Recommendations: 



According to Mr. Jon Pon of the MOCD, SLUG/ Bayview 
Safe Haven, which received $28,250 in FY 2001-2002, did 
not apply for ESGP funds in FY 2002-2003. 

The total ESGP allocation in FY 2002-2003 of $879,000 is 
$92 less than the FY 2001-2002 allocation of $879,092. 

HUD requires one-to-one matching funds, totaling 
$879,000, for the ESGP funds. 1 According to Mr. Phil 
Arnold of DHS, such matching funds have been budgeted in 
the proposed FY 2002-2003 DHS budget. Mr. Arnold 
reports that the source of the required matching funds is 
General Fund monies included in the DHS budget for 
homeless shelters. 

None. 

1. As noted above, the subject ESGP grant would allocate 
funds to (a) 17 non-profit organizations, (b) MOCD 
administrative costs, and (c) the Emergency Shelter Pool. 
The Budget Analyst recommends approval of existing 
programs with the same funding level as the prior year. 
Approval of the allocation of $28,250 to the Emergency 
Shelter Pool is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Attachment III is a Grant Application Information Form, 
provided by the MOCD, which includes a Disability Access 
Checklist. 

1. Approve funding in the amount of $850,750 ($879,000 
less new or increased funding of $28,250). 



1 The Budget Analyst notes that the Grant Information Form (Attachment III) incorrectly states that 
no matching funds are required by HUD, the granting agency. According to Mr. Pon, one-to-one 
matching funds, totaling $879,000, are required by HUD, and a corrected Grant Information Form 
will be submitted by MOCD for the Board of Supervisors file. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

108 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. Approval of increased funding of $28,250 for the 
Emergency Shelter Pool is a policy matter for the Board of 

Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

109 



a l Lac nm en u 



g 


































































5 


















































7 








--: 








g 




s 


- 




* 


- 


- 








' 


* 




A 






' 


W 




"■ 




* 




"T 


ri 










r- 






i 




- 
DC 


in 


■ f 


1 


*" 


§ 


3? 


3 


3 


-5- 


s" 


1 


| 


t- 


•■ 


■tf 


E' 


| 


3 


r-* 


§ 


i : 


3 


?i 


- 


■5 






£ 






•: 




-1 


s 


-t 


2 


r : 


*n 


- 


t* 


• 


■ 


r 


,;? 


° 


X 


;r 


■t 


T 


cn 


c 


- 


E 


OG 


■* 










oo 








a 


7 
7. 

-r 


'/. 

U 

< 

B 


O 

a: 


7 

O 


7 


BO 
p 

ifl 

Bl 

_J 

o 

CD 


7 
> 

7 

u 


o 

g 

o 
U 

u 


s. 

: 

D 


7 
Z 

o 

5 
U 

/ 

Q 


o 
_J 

2: 

c 
o 

00 

7 

c 
o 
U 

■7 

o 

a 
Q 


7 
7 

oo 

5 
O 

7 



a 

j 


u 


■5 

< 

o 



c 


J 

Li. 
o 


7 

X! 
U 

7i 


7 




O 

7 

7 


O 

-5 



u. 

5 
U 
e 

a 
a, 

c 


5 

is. 

n 
0. 

Q 

7 


o4 

o 

p 


s 

"a 

p 

7 


— 

00 

E 

a 

o 
U 
7 


H 
u 

•>> 

3 


U 


< 

'_ 



7 


■ 
o 

ei 

a£ 
■o 

Bj 


o 

o 
E 



> 

7 


a 

C 
v 


BJ 

7 

a 


z 

7 

■J 
^ _ 

7 

lZj 
7 

j 
- 







110 



Page 1 of 2 



Emergency Shelter Grant Program 



Activity Name and Location 



Program Description 



2002/03Budset 



Emergency Shelter Grants 

This program funds projects and services for homeless individual and families. 



1 . American Red Cross (Bay Area) 
1440 Harrison Street 



Provide one-time grants to eligible non- 
disabled single/couples that are at risk of 
eviction. 



S6S.000 



2. Asian Women's Shelter 
3543 18th Street 



Operating expenses to run shelter 



519,144 



3 . Asian Women's Shelter 
3543 -18th Street 



Provide intensive case management, 
counseling, collaboration and advocacy for 
battered women and their children 



536,856 



4 . BASF/The Volunteer Legal Services Program 
1360 Mission Street 



Provide eviction defense, benefits advocacy, 
family law, immigration, and domestic violence 
to low income clients. 



560,000 



5 . Catholic Charities 

240 Golden Gate Avenue 



Provide rental assistance to very low-income 
families and single individuals in danger of 
eviction or moving from transitional housing to 
permanent housing. 



S25.000 



6. Centra! City Hospitality House 
146 Leavenworth Street 



Provide case management and shelter to 
homeless adult males 



S15,000 



7 . Compass Community Services 
1 1 1 Taylor Street 



Provide emergency shelter to homeless families 
at Compass Family Center. 



550,000 



8 . Dolores Street Community Services 
938 Valencia 



Provide operating expenses for homeless 
facility serving Latinos. 



S3.500 



9. Dolores Street Community Services 
938 Valencia Street 



Provide case management and employment 
advocacy services to homeless working Latino. 



S44.500 



10. Emergency Shelter Pool 

1 1 . Episcopal Community Services of SF 
201 8th Street 



Provide shelter and meals to homeless adults 



S28.250 
540,000 



12. Eviction Defense Collaborative, Inc. 
433 South Van Ness Avenue 



The Eviction Defense Collaborative (EDC) 
provides legal assistance to tenants facing 
eviction lawsuits. 



S25.000 



111 



Section Bl 



Emergency Shelter Grant Program 



Activity Name and Location 



Program Description 



2 00 2/03 Budget 



13. 



Friendship House Association of American Indians 
333 Valencia Street 



Provide temporary shelter in a clean and sober 
environment for homeless American Indians. 



S36.900 



Hamilton Family Center, Inc 
1525 Waller Street 



Provide rent for emergency family shelter. 



S50.000 



La Casa de las Marires 
1850 Mission Street 



Operating expenses to run the program 



S31.518 



La Casa de las Madres 
1850 Mission Street 



Provide shelter and support services to bartered 
women and their children 



S45.782 



Larkin Street Youth Center 
536 Central Avenue 



Providing emergency shelter and other services 
to underage youth. 



S54.000 



Metropolitan Community Foundation 
3750 18th Street 



Provide shower, locker rooms, food, and 
personal hygiene to homeless adults on 
weekends at Mission High School. 



S47.000 



19. MOCD/ESG Administration 

20 . St. Vincent de Paul Society of SF 

425 Fourth Street 



Provide for administration of ESG Program, 



Provide emergency shelter for battered women 
and their children. 



S43.950 
S20.000 



21 . Swords to Plowshares 
1063 Market Street 



Provide counseling and case management 
services to homeless and at-risk veterans. 



S3 1,400 



22. Swords to Plowshares 
1063 Market Street 



Provide counseling and case management 
services to homeless veterans. 



57,200 



23. United Council of Human Services 
2111 Jennings Street 



Provide services to homeless or at-risk of 
becoming homeless, including a pantry 
program, food bag program, hot meal program, 
clothing bank, life skills training a nd 
corrdinated referrals. 



S96.000 



TOTAL ESG 



SS79,000 



112 



Section B2 



Page 1 of 2 



File Number: 



(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 



Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2002) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1. Grant Title: Emergency Shelter Grant 

2. Department: Mayor's Office of Community Development 

3. Contact Person: Pamela David Telephone: 252-3100 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[ ] Approved by funding agency [x] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for $879,000 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $ 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

7a. Grant Source Agency: 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: 



9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: 07/01/2001 End-Date: 06/30/02 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 

requirements? 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? 

113 



Page z of 2 



13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? 



[]Yes 



[x] No 



b1 . If yes, how much? S 

b2. How was the amount calculated? Estimated based on previous years expenditures. 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [ ] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[x] Other (please explain): Included in Community Development Block Grant 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



"Disability Access Checklist*" 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 



[x ] Existing Site(s) 

[x ] Rehabilitated Site(s) 

[x ] New Site(s) 



[x ] Existing Structure(s) 

[x j Rehabilitated Structure(s) 

[ x] New Structure(s) 



[x] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[x] New Program(s) or Service(s) 



16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer: Eugene Flannery_ 



(Name) 



Date Reviewed: 3/31/01 



Department Approval: Pamela David 



Director 

(Title) 




(Signature 



114 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 02-0617 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution (a) authorizing the Mayor to accept and expend 
a grant from the Federal Department of Housing and 
Urban Development for a total amount not to exceed 
$7,865,000 for the Home Program, authorized under Title 
II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Public 
Law Number 101-625, and (b) approving the Home 
Program description, as described in the 2002 Action Plan 
for San Francisco's Consolidated Plan. Indirect costs 
associated with the acceptance of these grant funds will be 
paid by Community Development Block Grant Funds. 

Not to exceed $7,865,000 

July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 

Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) 

Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program 

The HOME Program is authorized under Title II of the 
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Public Law 
Number 101-625). The Act provides funds for the 
acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of privately- 
owned affordable housing. 

In August of 1994, HUD issued regulations requiring that a 
Consolidated Plan be developed for (a) the HOME Program, 
(b) the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS 
(HOPWA) Program, and (c) the Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Under these regulations, 
MOH has developed a "Preliminary 2002 Action Plan for 
the City and County of San Francisco, Draft for Public 
Review" 1 . The MOH advises that the Preliminary 2002 
Action Plan, when finalized to reflect the program funding 
to be approved by the Board of Supervisors for the three 
programs noted above, will function as the MOH grant 



1 The "Preliminary 2002 Action Plan for the City and County of San Francisco, Draft for Public 
Review", contains the City's plans and programs for privately and non-profit owned housing, totaling 
555,339,477, as shown on the following page. The Final 2002 Action Plan will reflect the program 
funding requests as approved by the Board of Supervisors in this subject HOME Program legislation, 
and other legislation being considered by the Finance Committee (Files 02-0615 and 02-0616). 

B OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

115 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



application for HOME program funding from HUD. MOH 
and the Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD) must submit the 2002 Action Plan to HUD by May 
15, 2001. According to the Preliminary 2002 Action Plan 
for privately and non-profit owned housing development 
and administrative costs, the MOH anticipates receiving 
$7,865,000 which is $31,000 less than the 2001 allocation of 
$7,896,000. 

Projected funds for the Preliminary 2002 Action Plan for 
privately owned housing developments totals S55, 339,477 
including $6,878,500 of the proposed $7,865,000 HOME 
grant allocation 2 and various other sources of funding, as 
follows: 



Funding Source 


Amount 


Federal Funds 






HOME 


$6,878,500 




CDBG 3 


5,332,977 




CDBG Program Income 


750,000 




HOPWA 


988.000 




Subtotal, Federal Funds 




S13,939,477 


Local Sources 






Hotel Tax Fund 


$5,100,000 




Citywide Tax Increment (T.I.) 


2,000,000 




SOMA T.I. 


8,500,000 




Western Addition T.I. 


7,200,000 




Mission Bay Project Funds 


1,200,000 




Mid-Market 


4,000,000 




Bayview Hunters Point 


8,000,000 




Proposition A Bonds* 






Development Account Repayments 


5.400.000 




Subtotal, Local Funds 




S41, 400,000 


Total 




$55,339,477 



* Proposition . A was approved in November of 1996, authorizing the City to issue up to $100,000,000 in General 
Obligation Bonds to finance the development of affordable rental housing for low-income households. The Board 
of Supervisors has previously authorized sale of $100,000,000 of Proposition A bonds. 

The 2002 HOME Program funds of $6,878,500 represents 
approximately 12.4 percent of the total $55,339,477 in 



2 The funding sources noted above are for capital projects only. Of the proposed HOME grant, 
totaling $7,865,000, $6,878,500 is designated for capital projects (including acquisition and 
rehabilitation of housing and new housing construction), $50,000 is designated for tenant rental 
assistance, and $936,500 is designated for HOME program administrative costs. 

3 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are the subject of File 02-0615. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

116 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



projected funds for privately owned housing development in 
San Francisco. 

Procedures for allocating HOME Program funds were 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1992 
(File 68-92-4.1) and revised in February of 1994 (File 68-94- 
7). These procedures outlined broad criteria and the process 
for allocating the HOME Program funds, including 
notification procedures to interested parties on the 
availability of housing funds, evaluation of funding 
proposals, and criteria for underwriting housing loans. 
Projects eligible for HOME funding are defined as follows: 

(a) Construction of new housing units or rehabilitation of 
existing housing units, which will be owned and 
managed by the applicant for HOME funding, and 
which will be occupied by households with incomes that 
do not exceed 60 percent, or $51,660, of the median 
income of $86,100 for a family of four in the San 
Francisco metropolitan area, established by HUD, or 

(b) First-time home ownership assistance for low-income 
persons with household incomes that do not exceed 80 
percent, or $68,880, of the median income of $86,100 for 
a family of four in the San Francisco metropolitan area, 
established by HUD. 

HOME regulations require that a minimum of 15 percent of 
the City's proposed FY 2002-2003 HOME allocation of 
$7,865,000, or $1,179,750, be reserved for housing 
developed, sponsored or owned by non-profit Community 
Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). According 
to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, nearly all of San Francisco's 
affordable housing development efforts in recent years have 
been conducted in collaboration with local community- 
based non-profit housing development corporations, several 
of which have satisfied HUD requirements to qualify as 
CHDOs. According to Mr. LaTorre, CHDOs are expected to 
continue performing the roles that non-profit housing 
development corporations have traditionally performed in 
San Francisco, including acquisition and rehabilitation of 
existing buildings, acquisition of sites and development of 
new housing, and ownership and management of 
subsidized developments. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

117 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The proposed summary budget for the subject HOME 
Investment Partnership Program grant is as follows: 









Increase/ (D 


ecrease) 


Program 


FY 2001-2002 Budget 


FY 2002-2003 Budget 


in FY 2002-2003 


Projects: 










Supportive 










Housing 


$6,537,234 


$5,374,650 


($1,162,584) 




Non Profit 










Preservation 


362.692 


1.503.850 


1.141.158 




Subtotal 


$6,899,926 


$6,878,500 




($21,426) 


Tenant Based 










Housing Assistance 


56,474 


50,000 




(6,474) 


Administrative 










Costs: 










Community 










Housing Corp 


150,000 


150,000 







MOH HOME 










program 


640,192 


694,636 


54,444 




Other costs 


149,408 


91,864 


(57.544) 




Subtotal 


939,600 


936,500 




(3,100) 


Total 


$7,896,000 


$7,865,000 


($31,000) 



Required Match: 



Comments: 



$1,966,250 or 25 percent of HOME grant funds. Mr. 
LaTorre states that matching funds are available from the 
Hotel Tax Fund allocation for housing projects. Such 
matching funds would be part of the total funding of 
$55,339,477 for privately and non-profit owned housing 
developments, identified by the Preliminary 2002 Action 
Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. 

1. According to Mr. LaTorre, supportive housing projects in 
the amount of $5,374,650 include: 

(a) acquisition of the 98 unit Folsom/Dore site, located at 
1346 Folsom Street; and 

(b) other unidentified project sites. 

2. According to Mr. LaTorre, "Non Profit Preservation" 
funds, totaling $1,503,850, will be used for rehabilitation or 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

118 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



improvements to existing supportive housing facilities 
including: 

(a) rehabilitation to the Mercy Housing California owned 
building located at 241 Jones Street; 

(b) new sprinklers at the Swiss American Hotel, owned by 
Chinatown Community Development Corporation, 
located at 534 Broadway Street; 

(c) new sprinklers at the Chinatown Community 
Development Corporation owned building, located at 
665 Clay Street; and 

(d) rehabilitation of unidentified projects. 

3. Mr. LaTorre states that tenant-based housing assistance 
is provided by Catholic Charities Homeless Prevention 
Program to assist low-income tenants in avoiding eviction. 

4. As shown in the table on the previous page, total 
administrative costs in the proposed FY 2002-2003 HOME 
Investment Partnership Program are $936,500, which is 
$3,100 less than total administrative costs in the FY 2001- 
2002 budget of $939,600. In FY 2002-2003, administrative 
costs include the purchase of a $20,000 replacement vehicle 
to be used by MOH staff for site visits. This vehicle would 
replace a 1989 Plymouth Sundance with 34,669 miles. 
According to Mr. LaTorre, this vehicle has developed 
significant mechanical defects due to its age. This increased 
cost would be offset by decreases in other administrative 
costs. 

5. In FY 2001-2002 MOH proposed $80,000 for a 
professional services contract to develop an internal MOH 
program database. Of this $80,000, $30,000 was included 
in the HOME Program budget, and $50,000 was included in 
the CDBG budget. The Finance Committee placed this 
$80,000 on reserve, pending selection of a contractor and 
submission of budget details. In the FY 2002-2003 HOME 
Program budget, MOH has proposed an additional $20,000 
for a professional services contract to develop an internal 
MOH program database. Additionally, $30,000 has been 
included in the CDBG budget (File 02-0615) for the MOH 
program database development. The Budget Analyst 
recommends deleting $50,000 for a professional services 
contract to develop an internal computer database for 
MOH, which includes $20,000 in the proposed 2002-2003 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

119 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendations: 



HOME budget, which is the subject of this report, and 
$30,000 in the proposed FY 2002-2003 CDBG budget, which 
is the subject of File 02-0615, as further explained in File 
02-0615. 

6. Mr. LaTorre states that $150,000 in administrative costs 
would be allocated to community housing corporations, 
which is unchanged from the amount allocated in FY 2001- 
2002. Of the $150,000, the Chinatown Community 
Development Center, the Mission Housing Development 
Corporation and the Tenderloin Neighborhood 
Development Corporation would each be allocated $50,000. 

7. Section l.C of MOH Criteria and Procedures for 
allocating HOME Program funds requires that the Director 
of MOH submit an Annual Report to the Board of 
Supervisors by March 31 of each year for the preceding 
calendar year, providing an accounting of all HOME 
program funds received by the City and how the funds were 
expended. As of the writing of this report, the Annual 
Report has not been submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 
According to Mr. LaTorre, the Annual Report will be 
submitted to the Board of Supervisors on May 1. 2002. 

1. In accordance with the explanations contained in File 
02-0615, amend the FY 2002-2003 HOME Program budget 
by reducing $20,000 from the proposed amount of 
$7,865,000 to $7,845,000, to reflect the elimination of 
$20,000 for the MOH computer database. Such funds 
should be resubmitted to the Board of Supervisors for other 
program expenditures. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 




[arvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 



Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

120 



# 



r) 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



POARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



April 25, 2002 



TO: finance Committee 

FROM: budget Analyst 



DOCUMENTS DEPT\ 

APR 3 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



SUBJECT: May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Separate Report on FY 2002-2003 Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) Program 



Item 10 - .bile 02-0615 



Department: 



Item: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 
Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution approving the FY 2002-2003 Community 
Development Program, and authorizing the Mayor, on 
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to accept 
and expend (a) the City's FY 2002-2003 Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement from the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
(b) Program Income up to $33,722,231 which includes 
indirect costs of $160,000; and approving expenditure 
schedules for recipient departments and agencies for 
indirect costs. 



Amount: 



Up to $33,722,231 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Total Community Development Block Grant Program 
funding in FY 2002-2003 includes the FY 2002-2003 CDBG 
grant funds provided to the City by the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), transfer and 
expenditure of the reprogrammed funds from Community 
Development Programs in prior years, and program income 
generated by the Mayor's Office of Community 
Development, the Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH), and 
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA), as 
follows: 



FY 2002-2003 CDBG Program 
funds 


$25,315,000 




Reprogrammed funds from 
prior years 


923,220 




Subtotal, CDBG funds 




S26,238,220 


Program Income 




7.484.011 


Total 




$33,722,231 



Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 
Description: 



July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

None 

$160,000 

Under Title I of the Federal Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974, as amended, and related Federal 
regulations, San Francisco is eligible to receive a 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The 
primary objective of the CDBG Program is to develop viable 
urban communities by supporting programs providing 
decent housing, a suitable living environment, and 
economic opportunity for low- and moderate-income 
residents of San Francisco. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



REVISED 4/26/02 
Memo to the Finance Committee item iu - File 02-0blb 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize MOCD 
to accept and expend the FY 2002-2003 Community 
Development Block Grant of up to $26,238,220, including 
reprogrammed funds, which is $1,133,780, or 4.1 percent 
less than the FY 2001-2002 Community Development Block 
Grant of $27,372,000. Sections I through XV of this report 
provides an analysis of the proposed FY 2002-2003 CDBG 
budget, including the Budget Analyst's recommendations. 

Additionally, funds in the amount of $7,484,011 would be 
used for specific program income funded activities, as 
discussed in Section XV of this report. Total FY 2002-2003 
CDBG and program income funding is $33,722,231, 
including $26,238,220 in CDBG funds and $7,484,011 in 
program income funds. 

Attachment I, prepared by the Budget Analyst, beginning 
on page 46 of this report, is a CDBG Program Summary of 
Recommendations. The table includes the FY 2001-2002 
CDBG budget, the proposed FY 2002-2003 budget, a 
summary of changes from FY 2001-2002 to FY 2002-2003, 
and the Budget Analyst's recommendations. 

Comments: 1. The proposed total combined FY 2002-2003 budgets for 

the Community Development Block Grant, Home 
Improvement Partnership (HOME) Program Grant (File 
02-0617), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) (File 02- 
0616) programs of $34,982,220 are $1,164,872, or 3.2 
percent less than the total combined FY 2002-2003 
budgets for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs of 
$36,147,092. 1 However, the total combined FY 2002-2003 
administrative budgets of $5,766,542, including $4,786,091 
for CDBG, $936,500 for the HOME Program, and $43,950 
for the ESG Program are $61,588, or 1.1 percent more 
than the total combined FY 2001-2002 administrative 
budgets of $5,704,954, including $4,721,312 for CDBG, 
$939,600 for the HOME Program, and $44,042 for the ESG 
Program. 



1 These numbers do not include funds generated by Program Income. If Program Income is included 
in the total, the FY 2002-2003 CDBG, HOME, ESG and Program Income budget of $42,466,231, is 
$4,972,294, or 10.5 percent less than the FY 2001-2002 CDBG, HOME, ESG and Program Income 
budget of $47,438,525. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



REVISED 4/26/02 
Memo to the Finance Committee Item iU - File 02-Ubl^ 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

2. In FY 2002-2003, the CDBG, HOME Program, and ESG 
budgets contain 72 positions, which is unchanged from the 
number of positions included in the FY 2001-2002 budgets. 
Currently, MOH has one vacant Special Assistant XVI 
position at an annual salary and fringe benefit cost of 
$126,199, which serves as the Deputy Director, and MOCD 
has one vacant 9775 Senior Community Specialist II 
position, at an annual salary and fringe benefit cost of 
$103,843. The 9775 Senior Community Specialist position 
has been vacant for approximately one year. Although the 
MOH Deputy Director (Special Assistant XVI) position has 
been vacant since January of 2002, when the MOH Deputy 
Director was appointed as the MOH Director, the MOH 
Director position was vacant from July of 2001 until 
January of 2002. Therefore, a vacancy has existed in 
either the MOH Director or the MOH Deputy Director 
position from July 2001 through April 2002, a period often 
months. 

The Budget Analyst recommends that the vacant 9775 
Senior Community Specialist II position in MOCD and the 
vacant MOH Deputy Director (Special Assistant XVI) be 
deleted. If MOH is required to assume any subsequent new 
responsibilities, MOH can request addition of new 
positions at that time. The justification for any new 
positions will be analyzed by the Budget Analyst. Deletion 
of these two vacant positions will result in FY 2002-2003 
cost savings of $230,042, including salaries and fringe 
benefits. 

3. As discussed in Section XIII of this report, the Budget 
Analyst recommends deleting $50,000 for a professional 
services contract to develop an internal computer database 
for MOH, which includes $30,000 in the proposed FY 2002- 
2003 CDBG budget, which is the subject of this report, and 
$20,000 in the proposed FY 2002-2003 HOME budget, 
which is the subject of File 02-0617. As noted in Section 
XIII, the Board of Supervisors reserved $50,000 in last 
year's FY 2001-2002 CDBG budget and $30,000 in last 
year's FY 2001-2002 HOME budget to develop the MOH 
computer database. Therefore, a total of $80,000 has 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



REVIS ED 4/26/0? 
Memo to the Finance Committee Item 1U - File 02-0615 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

remained on reserve and unexpended for approximately one 
year. 

4. Attachment II, provided by MOCD, is a list of all 
unexpended CDBG funds from 1975 through FY 2001- 
2002 previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. As 
noted in Attachment II, in addition to $4,828,369 of 
unexpended funds from 2000 and $9,815,715 in 
unexpended funds from 2001, the CDBG has unexpended 
funds from 1993 through 1999 totalling $4,773,052. 
Although the MOCD explanations for the unexpended 
funds are "contracts underway" and "balance committed to 
projects under review", the Budget Analyst questions the 
significant amounts of unexpended funds dating back to 
1993 previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. The Budget Analyst notes that the Controller's Audits 
Division issued an audit of the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development : Career Resources Development 
Center on March 11, 2002. This Controller's audit found 
that the executive director of the Career Resources 
Development Center, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, that is 
proposed to receive $90,000 of CDBG funds (page 4 of 
Attachment I), mismanaged the Center's government 
funds, forged signatures on official documents, failed to 
have the Center undergo required financial audits and did 
not implement recommendations to improve the Center's 
financial management practices from an independent audit 
completed in 1999. 



Recommendations: The Budget Analyst's recommendations for the FY 2002- 
2003 CDBG and Program Income budget are as follows: 

1. Reduce the FY 2002-2003 Program Administration 
budget by $260,042, from the proposed amount of 
$4,786,091 to $4,526,049 to reflect (a) the deletion of two 
vacant positions with a total salary and fringe benefit cost 
of $230,042, as noted in Comment 2, and (b) the deletion of 
$30,000 for the MOH computer database, as noted in 
Comment 3. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to the Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. Approval of funding in the amount of $6,167,382 for new 
or expanded programs is a policy matter for the Board of 

Supervisors. 

3. Approve funding in the amount of $27,294,807, including 
CDBG and Program Income programs, for existing 
programs for which the recommended budget for FY 2002- 
2003 was unchanged from the FY 2001-2002 budget. 

4. Although the Budget Analyst makes no 
recommendations regarding prior 3 r ears unexpended funds, 
as previously noted, there are unexpended CDBG funds 
from 1993 through 1999 totaling $4,773,052. Although the 
MOCD explanations for the unexpended funds are 
"contracts underway" and "balance committed to projects 
under review", the Budget Analyst questions the significant 
amounts of unexpended funds dating back to 1993 
previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Although the Budget Analyst makes no specific 
recommendations regarding the Career Resources 
Development Center, it should be noted that the 
Controller's Audits Division issued an audit of the Mayor's 
Office of Community Development: Career Resources 
Development Center on March 11, 2002. This Controller's 
audit found that the executive director of the Career 
Resources Development Center, Inc., a nonprofit 
corporation, that is proposed to receive $90,000 of CDBG 
funds (page 4 of Attachment I), mismanaged the Center's 
government funds, forged signatures on official documents, 
failed to have the Center undergo required financial audits 
and did not implement recommendations to improve the 
Center's financial management practices from an 
independent audit completed in 1999. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section I: Housing Program Administration - $2.516.084 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $2,516,084 in FY 2002-03 to fund eleven 
Housing Program Administration agencies, a decrease of $25,000 or 
approximately 1 percent, from the FY 2001-02 budget allocation of 
$2,541,084. 

A description of the proposed Housing Program Administration program with 
new funding is as follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Funding and New Programs 







Proposed 


Increase 




FY 2001- 


FY 2002- 


in FY 




2002 


2003 


2002-2003 


Program 


Budget 


Budget 


Budget 


Mission Economic Development 








Associations 








Provide rehabilitation to existing low- 
income units, housing technical 


S 


$ 25,000 


S 25,000 


assistance, and other low-income 








housing services 








Subtotal 


$ 


$ 25,000 


S 25,000 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for Housing Program Administration. 



Proposed Housing Program Administration Budget for FY 2002-2003 


Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY r 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


$2,541,084 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(50.000) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




S2, 491, 084 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




25.000 


Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




$2,516,084 



Board of Supervisors 
Bid get Analyst 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comment 

According to Mr. Daryl Higashi of the MOH, the Mission Economic 
Development Association provides homeownership education and assistance 
to the community. Mr. Higashi reports that the Mission Economic 
Development Association coincides with MOH's priority to fund programs 
that assist low and moderate income families seeking to become homeowners. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve $2,491,084 of the requested $2,516,084 for Housing Program 
Administration programs to continue funding for existing programs. 

2. Approval of $25,000 in funding for a new Housing Program Administration 
program is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Amalyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section II: Housing Program Pool - $5. 332. 977 

The MOH proposes to expend Housing Program Pool funds in FY 2002-03 on 
the projects noted below, including projects for renovation of existing low- 
income housing facilities and loans to low-income and elderly single family 
homeowners for repairs. Funding for such projects would include prior year 
unallocated CDBG Housing Program Pool funds, program income funds, and 
FY 2002-03 CDBG program funds. Housing Program Pool funds are used for 
the acquisition of land for low-income housing construction, for the 
renovation of existing buildings to be used for low-income housing, and for 
pre-development costs. 

Total projected program funds, including the subject $5,332,977 CDBG funds, 
as well as prior years funds and program income funds total $7,247,439. The 
FY 2002-03 CDBG allocation of $5,332,977 is $15,000 or 0.28 percent less 
than the FY 2001-02 allocation of $5,347,977. Funding sources for the 
Housing Program Pool are as follows: 



Source of Funds 


Amount 


Current and Prior Years' Unallocated CDBG Pool funds 
Program Income from Completed and Amortized Loans 
Estimated FY 2002-03 Program Income 
FY 2002-03 CDBG Funds 


SI, 004,291 

160,171 

750,000 

5.332,977 


Total Funds 


$7,247,439 



MOH has proposed use of the Housing Program Pool funds, as follow: 



Board of &per\ isors 
Budget Analyst 

9 



Program 


Proposed FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Unexpended Existing Commitments 

Capital improvements to San Francisco Housing Authority 

properties (sites to be determined) 
Ambassador Hotel, 55 Mason Street 

Subtotal 

Other Proposed FY 2002-03 Programs 

Housing opportunities (site to be determined) 
Capital improvements to existing 

affordable housing owned by nonprofits 

(sites to be determined) 
Loans to low-income/elderly single family 

homeowners 

Subtotal 


SI, 600,000 

400.000 
S2. 000,000 

S247.439 

2.500.000 

2.500.000 
S5. 247,439 


Total Proposed Uses 


$7,247,439 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments 

1. As shown above, the FY 2002-03 Housing Program Pool, totaling 
$7,247,439, consists of the subject $5,332,977 in FY 2002-03 CDBG funds and 
$1,914,462 in other funding sources. 

2. According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, CDBG funds are expected to be 
allocated primarily to projects for which applications have been received in 
response to "Notices of Funding Availability" in 2001-2002. If funds remain 
available after meeting those needs, one or more "Notices of Funding 
Availability" may be issued in 2002-03. 

Recommendation 

Approve the requested amount of $5,332,977 for the FY 2002-03 Housing 
Program Pool. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section III: Public Housing Program - S200.000 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $200,000 to fund one new Public Housing 
Program project in FY 2002-03, which is a decrease of $5,560, or 2.7 percent, 
from the FY 2001-02 budget allocation of $205,560. 

Summary of Programs with Increased Funding and New Programs 



Program 


Proposed 
FY 2001- FY 2002- 

2002 2003 
Budget Budget 


Increase 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


SF Housing Authority 
Provides ADA accessibility 
modifications to bathroom, kitchen and 
all doorwavs. 


SO 


S 200,000 


S 200,000 


Subtotal SO! $ 200,000 


$ 200,000 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for Public Housing. 

Proposed Public Housing Budget for FY 2002-2003 





Prior Year- 






Funding 


Continued 




less 


and New or 




Decreases 


Increased 


Funding Description 


in FY 


Funding in 




2002-2003 


FY 2002- 




Funding 


2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


8205,560 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(205.560) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 







Summary 7 of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 




S200.000 


or New Programs 






Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




S200,000 



Comment: 

According to Mr. Jon Pon of MOCD, the Public Housing Program funds will 
be allocated to the San Francisco Housing Authority for the Sunnydale 
Housing Development located at 1652 Sunnydale Avenue in San Francisco. 
According to Mr. Pon, the allocation in the amount of $200,000 will fund 
construction costs for upgrading the bathroom, kitchen and doorways of two 
facilities, a community hall and an adjacent child care center, to comply with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Pon states that private contractors 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

n 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

will be selected through a competitive bid process to perform the construction 
work. 

Recommendation 

Approval of the new proposed FY 2002-03 Public Housing Program funding of 
$200,000 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section IV : Public Facility Improvements - $1,741,414 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,741,414 to fund Public Space 
Improvement Projects in FY 2002-03, the same budget allocation as in FY 
2001-02. 

Public Facility Improvement funds are used for the construction or project 
costs for outdoor or open space projects, including projects to improve open 
space and community gardens, develop children's playgrounds, and other 
public space improvements. Descriptions of the proposed new or increased 
Public Space Improvements programs are as follows: 

Summary of Programs with Increased Funding and New Programs 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases/in 

FY 2002- 
2003 Budget 


Public Space Improvement Pool 

Provides for additional public 
improvements due to unforeseen 
problems and emergency situations. 


S 200,000 


S 318,254 


S 118,254 


Subtotal $200,000 


$318,254 


$118,254 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for Public Facility Improvement. 



Proposed Public Facility Improvements Budget for FY 2002-2003 


Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY r 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


$1,741,414 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(118.254) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




SI. 623, 160 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




S118,254 


Total Funding in FY 2002-2003 




$1,741,414 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments 

The allocation for the Public Space Improvement Pool has increased by 
$118,254 or 59.1 percent, from $200,000 in FY 2001-02 to $318,254 in FY 
2002-03. Mr. Pon states that the Public Space Improvement Pool monies will 
be used to fund unanticipated increased costs for outdoor and open space 
projects. According to Mr. Pon, the increased funds of $118,254 will be used 
to fund two additional public space improvement projects for senior housing 
developments. Mr. Pon states that all FY' 2001-02 Public Space 

Improvement Pool monies will have been expended prior to the end of the 
current fiscal year. 

Recommendations 

1. Approval of $118,254 in increased FY 2002-2003 funding for the Public 
Space Improvement Pool is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Approve funding in the amount of $1,623,160 for on-going Public Facility 
Improvement programs. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section V: Existing Facility Renovation - $1,768.745 

The MOCD proposes to fund 24 projects in the amount of $1,768,745 for 
Existing Facilities Renovation in FY 2002-03, an increase of $311,225 or 
21.35 percent, from the FY 2001-02 budget allocation of $1,457,520. 

The Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities primarily involves rehabilitating 
buildings to meet health, fire and safety codes and licensing requirements. 
All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements or new 
construction and do not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost 
for each project is based on an estimate prepared by an architect and 
reviewed by MOCD. The actual expenditures will be determined through a 
competitive bid process in accordance with Federal regulations. 

Twenty-two of the 24 projects are funded for the first time in FY 2002-03 as 
follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Fundin 


g and New 


Programs 


Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


509 Cultural Center 
To improve fire safety, electrical and 
ventilation systems at drop-in center 
providing social sendees. 


so 


S 60,000 


S 60,000 


Bernal Heights Neighborhood 
Center 

To replace heating system and windows. 





37,000 


37,000 


Booker T. Washington Community 
Service Center 

To replace sewer line in multi-purpose 
neighborhood facility. 





18,000 


IS, 000 


Boys & Girls Club of SF (Mission) 

To replace pool heating and water 
filtration systems in youth facility. 





9,475 


9,475 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Community Awareness and 
Treatment, Services 

To install new fire sprinklers in 
basement of homeless shelter. 





100,000 


100,000 


Ella Hill Hutch Community Center 

To replace 13 roof furnaces at 
multipurpose neighborhood center. 





130,000 


130,000 


Florence Crittenton Services 

To renovate residential facility serving 
infants and pregnant teens. 





66,500 


66,500 


Instituto Familiar de la Raza 

To install elevator at multi-purpose 
family resource center. 





110,000 


110,000 


Japanese Community Youth Council 

To install elevator at neighborhood 
youth facility. 





140,000 


140,000 


Legal Services for Children 

To provide ADA access and heating to 
children's legal service facility. 





93,000 


93,000 


Metropolitan Community 
Foundation 

To install ramp at homeless meal 
program site. 





25,000 


25,000 


Mission Language and Vocational 
School, Inc. 

To rehabilitate vocational training 
facility serving new immigrants and 
residents of the Mission district. 





100,000 


100,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Ajsalvst 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Mission Neighborhood Centers 

To provide new counseling offices, 
renovate multi-purpose room, and add 
accessible ramp and signage at youth 
service center. 





94,420 


94,420 


Mission Neighborhood Center's 

To install ventilation system at Head 
Start Center that serves 40 children 
and their families. 





25,000 


25,000 


Mission Neighborhood Centers 

To install heating system in Head Start 
center serving up to 80 children. 





20,000 


20,000 


Mission Neighborhood Health 
Center 

To renovate entry way and stair way to 
meet current code and ADA standards, 
and create counseling office. 





134,500 


134,500 


Playmates Cooperative Nursery 
School 

To provide an accessible ramp at a child 
care center in the Sunset area. 





30,000 


30,000 


Potrero Hill Neighborhood House 

To rehabilitate multi-purpose 
community center serving children, 
youth, adults and seniors. 





53,600 


53,600 


Southwest Community Corporation 

To provide security lighting, fence and 
doors at multi-purpose neighborhood 
center. 





19,250 


19,250 


Swords to Plowshares 

To improve accessibility to a multi- 
service facility serving homeless and 
low-income veterans. 





140,000 


140,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Walden House 

To upgrade various bathroom areas of 
residential drug rehab facility to comply 
with ADA. 





100,000 


100,000 


YMCA (Mission) 

To renovate two preschool restrooms in 
childcare facility. 





50,000 


50,000 


Subtotal 


$0 


$ 1,555,745 


$ 1,555,745 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for Existing Facility Renovation. 



Proposed Existing Facility Renovation Budget for FY 2002-2003 




Prior Year 


Continued 




Funding 


and New or 




less 


Increased 




Decreases 


Funding in 


Funding Description 


in FY 


FY 2002- 




2002-2003 


2003 




Funding 




Total Funding for Prior Year 


$1,457,520 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(1.244.520) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




5213,000 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 




SI. 555. 745 


or New Programs 






Total Funding in FY 2002-2003 


$1,768,745 



Comment 

According to Mr. Pon, cost estimates for the capital improvement projects 
were developed by an architectural consultant and were reviewed by MOCD. 
All projects will be subject to the competitive selection of contractors. 



Board of S&pervisors 
Budget Analyst 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendations 



1. Approve funding of $213,000 of the requested FY 2002-03 CDBG amount of 
$1,768,745 for continuing programs. 

2. Approval of requested funding of $1,555,745 for 22 new projects to be 
funded from the FY 2002-03 CDBG program funds is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Ajsalyst 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section VI: New Facilities Development: S537.000 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $537,000 to fund eight New Facilities 
Development Projects in FY 2002-03, a decrease of $353,500, or 39.7 percent, 
from the FY" 2001-02 budget allocation of $890,500. 

New facilities are denned as those projects in which the agency is purchasing 
or building new space, expanding into larger space, or renovating space for 
new programs not previously available from that agency. This program 
category involves development of multi-purpose neighborhood, senior, and 
mental health service centers in high need lower-income communities. 

All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements or new 
construction and do not fund staff or administrative costs. Actual project 
expenditures will be determined by selection of a contractor through a public, 
competitive bidding process in accordance with Federal regulations. 

Seven of the eight New Facilities Development Projects are funded for the 
first time in FY 2002-03 as follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Fundin 


g and New 


Programs 


Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


South of Market Foundation 

To renovate conference room in 
business development facility. 


$ 


$ 25,000 


S 25,000 


San Francisco Conservation Corps 

To upgrade employment and education 
facility with new bathrooms and related 
ADA improvements. 





97,000 


97,000 


Nihonmachi Legal Outreach 

Accessibility improvements to older 
building that legal services nonprofit is 
relocating into. 





55,000 


55,000 


La Raza Centro Legal 

To renovate day laborer hiring and 
service center. 





30,000 


30,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Chinatown Community 
Development Center 

To provide tenant improvements at new- 
housing counseling center. 





100,000 


100,000 


Burt Children Center 

To construct protective isolation room in 
adolescent residential treatment 
facility. 





30,000 


30,000 


Arriba Juntos 

To purchase and install commercial 
kitchen equipment for catering 
incubator program. 





125,000 


125,000 


Subtotal 


$0 


$ 462,000 


$ 462,000 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for New Facilities Development. 



Proposed New Facilities Development Budget for FY 2002 


-2003 




Prior Year 


Continued 




Funding 


and New or 




less 


Increased 




Decreases 


Funding in 


Funding Description 


in FY 


FY 2002- 




2002-2003 


2003 




Funding 




Total Funding for Prior Year 


$890,500 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


815.500 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




S75,000 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 




462.000 


or New Programs 






Total Funding in FY 2002-2003 


$537,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments 

1. In addition to the seven projects noted above, the FY 2002-03 budget 
includes §75,000 to fund capital improvements at the North of Market Senior 
Services at 315 Turk Street. Capital improvements for North of Market 
Senior Services were first funded in FY 2000-01 and include installation of an 
elevator and build out of the basement and first floor to provide program and 
office space. 

2. According to Mr. Pon, cost estimates for the capital improvement projects 
were developed by an architectural consultant and were reviewed by MOCD. 
All projects will be subject to the competitive bidding process. 

Recommendations 

1. Approval of requested funding of $462,000 for new projects in FY 2002-03 
CDBG program funds is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Approve $75,000 for continuing projects. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section VII: Other Rehabilitation Program Pools - SI, 718.645 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,718,645 to two Rehabilitation Program 
Pools in FY 2002-03, a decrease of $1,193,725, or 41 percent, from the FY 
2001-02 budget allocation of $2,912,370. 

The description of the proposed Program Pool with increased funding is as 
follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Funding and New Programs 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Facility Emergency Relief Pool 

Provides emergency capital funding to 
existing facilities that encounter 
unforeseen code problems during 
construction 


S 1,276,370 


S 1,318,645 


S 42,275 


Subtotal 


S 1,276,370 I S 1,318,645 


S 42,275 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
for Rehabilitation Program Pools. 



Proposed Rehabilitation Program Pools Budget for FY 2002-2003 



Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY" 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


S2,912,370 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


Q. 236.000) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




SI. 676,370 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




42.275 


Total Funding in FY 2002-2003 




$1,718,645 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments 

1. FY 2002-03 Disability Access Upgrade Program Pool funds of $400,000 are 
unchanged from FY 2001-02. Mr. Pon states that these funds will be used to 
pay for required ADA upgrades and improvements in existing and new 
facility construction and renovation projects, noted in Sections V and VI 
above, that were not foreseen at the outset of the project. 

2. Funding for the Facility Emergency Relief Pool has increased by $42,275 
from $1,276,370 in FY 2001-2002 to $1,318,645 in FY 2002-2003. According 
to Mr. Pon, the Facility Emergency Relief Pool provides funds to existing and 
new facility construction and renovation projects, noted in Sections V and VI 
above, that encounter unforeseen code or construction problems during the 
construction or renovation of the facility. Funds are also available to cover 
certain predevelopment expenses associated with the development of a new 
center. 

3. MOCD included $1,236,000 in the FY 2001-02 budget to fund loans to two 
non-profit organizations, John W. King Senior Center and Geneva Valley 
Development Corporation, for construction of a senior center and a 
community center in Visitacion Valley. No funding for such loans is proposed 
in the FY 2002-03 budget. 

Recommendations 

1. Approval of $42,275 in increased funding in FY 2002-2003 for the Facility 
Emergency Relief Pool is a polic3' matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Approve $1,676,370 for continued funding. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Ma}' 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section VIII: Public Services Program - S4.840.000 

The MOCD proposes to fund 85 Public Service programs in the amount of 
$4,840,000 in FY 2002-03, a decrease of S73,000, or 1.5 percent, from the FY 
2001-02 budget allocation of $4,913,000, which funded 82 Public Service 
programs. Of the 85 Public Service programs seven are receiving funding 
increases, three of the seven are new grantees in FY 2002-03. 

Descriptions of the proposed Public Service Programs with new or increased 
funding are as follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Funding and New Programs 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Chinatown Community 
Development Center 

Provides housing counseling services to 
monolingual Chinese-speaking tenants. 


SO 


S 40,000 


S 40,000 


Community Youth Center- San 
Francisco 

Provide vocational and computer and 
multimedia training, job readiness and 
placement assistance to young people 
between the aees of 18-25. 





35,000 


35,000 


Donaldina Cameron House 

Provides multi-lingual employment 
readiness training for Asian female 
domestic violence victims. 


24,000 


35,000 


11,000 


Ingleside Community Center 

Provides workforce development 
training, job placements, retention and 
referral services. 


68,500 


70,500 


2,000 


Tides Center/The Housing Rights 
Committee 

Provides housing counsehng services to 
low income and senior tenants who are 
experiencing problems with their 
landlords. 


47,000 


57,000 


10,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Vietnamese Community Center of SF 

Provides vocational training, referrals, 
and placement services to low income 
Vietnamese vouth. 





50.000 


50,000 


Young Community Developers 
Provides job search, employment 
placement, work readiness, career 
development and transition services 


75,000 


100,000 


25,000 


Subtotal 


$ 214,500 


$ 387,500 | $ 173,000 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's Proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for the Public Service Program. 



Total Budget of Public Services Program for FY 2002-2003 




Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


$4,913,000 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior "lear 


(246.000} 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




54,667,000 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




173.000 


Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




$4,840,000 



Comments 

1. According to Ms. Pam David of MOCD, MOCD and the Citizen's 
Committee on Community Development established several priorities for 
organizations requesting new or increased Public Service grants. These 
priorities included programs 1) serving youths coming out of foster care, 2) 
expanding language and cultural capacity to meet neighborhood changing 
demographics, and 3) filling gaps in services for which there are no other 
funding sources. 



2. According to Ms. David, in the past, preference has been given to 
programs that were previous CDBG fund recipients. Ms. David notes that 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

being able to rely on CDBG funding has been an important contribution to 
neighborhood stabilization, but that MOCD is gradually implementing 
policies to level the competitive playing field and bring increased equity to 
the program. Ms. David states that MOCD is accomplishing this by 
continuing to move those grantees that had received more than $125,000 per 
year to that ceiling, and limiting new program grants to $50,000. In addition, 
MOCD will be offering two and three-year contracts to existing grantees with 
good programmatic and administrative track records, subject to the 
availability of funds and continued performance. Subsequent to the two or 
three-year contract, these organizations would be required to submit a full 
application to MOCD and be considered alongside all other applicants. 
According to Ms. Davis, the criteria for renewed and new funding will include 
a program's track record, excellence in programming, and role in supporting 
or strengthening neighborhood infrastructure, as well as meeting other 
priorities as established by MOCD and its Citizen's Committee. 

3. According to Ms. David, attempts were made to limit Public Service grant 
awards to $50,000 for new programs during this year's funding cycle. In 
addition, MOCD has instituted a funding ceiling of $125,000 per agency for 
CDBG funded programs. Ms. David states that all but two Public Service 
agencies are at or below the cap. Ms. David further states that the remaining 
two have made substantial reductions on their way to meeting the cap. 
According to Ms. David, all programs will be at the cap by the next fiscal 
year. 

4. The Budget Analyst notes that the Controller's Audits Division issued an 
audit of the Mayor's Office of Community Development : Career Resources 
Development Center on March 11, 2002. This audit found that the executive 
director of the Career Resources Development Center, Inc., a nonprofit 
corporation, that is proposed to receive $90,000 of CDBG funds, mismanaged 
the Center's government funds, forged signatures on official documents, 
failed to have the Center undergo required financial audits and did not 
implement recommendations to improve the Center's financial management 
practices from an independent audit completed in 1999. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve funding of $4,667,000 out of the requested FY 2002-03 CDBG 
amount of $4,840,000 for continuing programs. 

2. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing 
programs in the amount of $173,000 is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section IX : Neighborhood Centers - S165.00 

The MOCD proposes to fund nine Neighborhood Centers programs in the 
amount of $165,000 in FY 2002-03. The FY 2001-02 budget did not allocate 
any funds to Neighborhood Centers programs, therefore the $165,000 in 
funding increases would be allocated to nine new grantee programs in FY 
2002-03. 

Descriptions of the proposed Neighborhood Center programs with new 
funding are as follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Fundin 


g and New 


Programs 


Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Bayview Hunters Point Network for 
Elders 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 


so 


S 15,000 


S 15,000 


Chinese for Affirmative Action 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





12,500 


12,500 


Chinese Newcomers Service Center 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





12,500 


12,500 


Haight Ashbury Food Program 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





15,000 


15,000 


Mission Neighborhood Centers 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





25,000 


25,000 


Portola Family Connections 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





20,000 


20,000 


Potrero Hill Neighborhood House 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





20,000 


20,000 



Board of SIiperx isors 
Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


Sunset Youth Services 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





20,000 


20,000 


Telegraph Hill Neighborhood 
Center 

To support the general operating costs 
of neighborhood-building activities. 





25,000 


25,000 


Subtotal 


so 


S 165,000 


S 165,000 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's Proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for the Neighborhood Centers Program. 



Proposed Neighborhood Centers Budget for FY 2002-2003 




Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY T 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 







ouinmary oi iy"u^uc>-u * Luiu-Lug j.xum i. uw xcai 






Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 







Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




S165.000 


Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




$165,000 



Comments 

1. According to Ms. Anna Yee of MOCD, this is first year that funds would be 
allocated to organizations under the Neighborhood Centers Program. 
According to Ms.Yee, the Neighborhood Centers Program was recently 
created to support a neighborhood-focused, multi-service model of community 
development and the unique contributions that such an approach provides to 
neighborhoods. Ms. Yee states that through formal and informal services, 
these organizations become part of the fabric of a neighborhood and work to 
ensure the health and resilience of a specific neighborhood, through among 
other services, providing child care, senior services, education and advocacy, 
information and referrals, employment assistance, tutoring, health care, and 
after school programs. Ms. Yee states that the continued existence of the 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

program into the next fiscal year would depend upon the availability of funds 
and the success of the Neighborhood Centers Program based on evaluations. 

2. According to Ms. Yee, the amount of S165,000 would be allocated to the 
nine new grantees to provide for the general operating costs of each 
organization. Ms. Yee states that priority was given to those organizations 
that at a minimum 1) served multiple populations. 2) received CDBG funding 
in the last three years for other programs, 3) has served the neighborhood for 
at least five years, 4) provides multiple high quality services to the 
neighborhood, 5) operates and focuses on a specific geographic neighborhood, 
and 6) were recognized widely throughout their neighborhood as "the 
neighborhood center". 

Recommendation 

Approval of funding for new programs in the amount of $165,000 is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of 36per\ isors 
Budget Analyst 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section X: Economic Development Program - S 1,228,500 

The MOCD proposes to allocate SI. 228,500 in FY 2002-03 to fund four new 
and twelve existing Economic Development programs and the MOCD 
Economic Development Pool, a decrease of S10,000, or approximately 0.8 
percent from the FY 2001-02 budget allocation of $1,238,500. 

Descriptions of the proposed Economic Development programs that would 
receive new or increased funding are shown below. 



Summary of Programs with Increased Fundin 


g and New 


Programs 


Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases in 

FY r 2002-2003 

Budget 


Juma Ventures 

Provides youth with job training and 
employment at nonprofit business 
enterprises. 


S 30,000 


S 40,000 


S 10,000 


Mission Economic Development 
Association 

Expands access to technical assistance 
and loan packaging services for small 
businesses and entrepreneurs in the 
Excelsior and Outer Mission district. 





S0,000 


80,000 


Northeast Community Federal Credit 
Union 

assistance to small businesses, women- 
owned and minority owned businesses 
with a focus on the Asian Pacific Islander 
communities. 





120,000 


120,000 


Renaissance Entrepreneurship 
Center 

Provides training, technical support and 
financial services through the Bayview 
Small Business Center to small business 
and entrepreneurs in the 
Bayview/Hunters Point and surrounding 
neighborhoods. 





208,000 


208,000 


Southeast Asian Community Center 

Provides loan packaging and technical 
assistance to small businesses, women- 
owned and minority owned businesses 
with a focus on the Asian Pacific Islander 
communities. 





120,000 


120,000 


Subtotal 


S 30,000 


$ 568,000 


S 538.000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

The following table is a summary of MOCD's Proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for the Economic Development Program. 

Proposed Economic Development Budget for FY 2002-2003 





Prior Year 






Funding 


Continued 




less 


and New or 


Funding Description 


Decreases 


Increased 




in FY 


Funding in 




2002-2003 


FY* 2002- 




Funding 


2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


S 1,238,500 




Summarj 7 of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(548.000) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




5690,500 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 






or New Programs 




538.000 


Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 


$1,228,500 



Comments 

1. According to Mr. Al Lerma of MOCD, funding priority was given to those 
organizations whose purpose is to create employment and entrepreneurial 
opportunities for low-income neighborhood residents, and revitalize low-income 
neighborhoods. Mr. Lerma states that these organizations would provide 
training and technical or financial services to support the creation, expansion 
or retention of small businesses. 

2. In FY 2000-01, the Board of Supervisors placed on reserve $100,000 for the 
Mayor's Office of Economic Development to fund technical assistance services 
for small businesses in the Asian community. Mr. Lerma states that the 
$100,000 in funds were released from reserve by the Finance Committee on 
October 24, 2001, to fund a portion of the contract with the Joint Venture 
Partnership of Southeast Asian Community Center and Northeast Community 
Federal Credit Union, selected by a request for proposal, to provide economic 
development services to the Asian Pacific Islander community. 

Recommendations 



1. Approve funding of $690,500 of the requested FY* 2002-03 CDBG amount of 
$1,228,500 for new or continuing programs. 

2. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing 
programs in the amount of $538,000 is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section XI: Microenterprise Assistance - S717.500 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $717,500 in FY 2002-03 to fund seven 
existing Microenterprise Assistance Programs. There would be no funding 
change to the seven Microenterprise Assistance Programs from the FY 2001- 
2002 budget allocation of $717,500. 

The following table is a summary of MOCD's Proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for the Microenterprise Assistance Program. 



Proposed Microenterprise Assistance Budget for FY 2002- 


2003 


Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


$717,500 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 







Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




S717,500 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 







Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




S717,500 



Recommendation 

Approve $717,500 of the requested $717,500 for Microenterprise Assistance 
programs to continue funding for existing programs. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section XII: Higher Education - $75,000 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $75,000 to fund the City College of San 
Francisco (CCSF) Small Business Development Program, as follows: 



Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


City College of SF Sm Bus Dvlpmt 
Ctr. 

Provides technical assistance, one-on- 
one business counseling, loan packaging 
services and post-loan technical 
assistance to small businesses. 


$ 65,000 


$ 75,000 


S 10,000 


Subtotal 


$ 65,000 


$ 75,000 


$ 10,000 



The following table is a summary of MOCD's Proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for the Higher Education Program. 



Proposed Higher Education Budget for FY 2001-2002 




Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


$65,000 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


- 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




S65,000 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




10,000 


Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




875,000 



Comment 

According to Mr. Sanders, CCSF would receive a $10,000 increase in funding 
for a Small Business Development Center. Under this program, the Small 
Business Development Center would provide one-on-one business consulting to 
small and emerging business clients, provide training to MOCD staff on 
improving their technical assistance, and provide follow-up training and 
support for selected businesses. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendations 

1. Approval of increased funding in the amount of $10,000 to the CCSF 
Small Business Development Program is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Approve funding of $65,000 for continuing programs. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section XIII; Program Administration - S4. 786. 091 

The proposed budget of $4,786,091 for Program Administration in FY 2002- 
03 represents an increase of $64,779 or 1.4 percent, from the FY 2001-02 
Program Administration budget allocation of $4,721,312. Program 
Administration funds are allocated among six City Departments, including 
the Controller's Office, the Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD), the Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH), the City Attorney's Office, the 
Human Rights Commission, and the Planning Department. The summary 
budget for Program Administration is as follows: 









Increase/ 








(Decrease) 






Proposed 


in FY 




FY 2001-02 


FY 2002-03 


2002-03 


Department 


Budget 


Budget 


Budget 


Controller 








Audit and Indirect Costs 


$60,000 


$60,000 


$0 


Audit and Indirect Costs (MOH) 


60.000 


$60,000 





Subtotal 


$120,000 


$120,000 


$0 


Mavor's Office of Community 








Development 








Administration 


2,531,177 


2,573,071 


41,894 


Enterprise Community Program 


70,561 


74,998 


4,437 


Environmental Review 


15,000 


15,000 





Office of Homeless 


121,134 


70,791 


(50,343) 


Disability Council 


10,000 


10,000 





Rent Relocation Board 





12,588 


12,588 


Day Labor 





9.622 


9,622 


Subtotal 


$2,747,872 


$2,766,070 


$18,198 


Mavor's Office of Housing 








Affordable Housing Bonds 


175,197 


184,748 


9,551 


Administration 


1,167,409 


1,223,536 


56,127 


Environmental Review 


5,000 


5,000 





Lead Program 


190.834 


20S.563 


17.729 


Subtotal 


$1,538,440 


$1,621,847 


$83,407 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Department 


FY 2001-02 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002-03 

Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

in FY 

2002-03 

Budget 


City Attornev's Office 

MOCD 
MOH 

Subtotal 


25,000 

25.000 

$50,000 


25.000 

25.000 

$50,000 









Human Rights Commission 

MOCD 
MOH 


125,000 

125.000 

$250,000 


46,500 

166.675 

$213,175 


(78,500) 

41.675 

($36,825) 


Planning Department 

MOCD 
MOH 


7,500 

7.500 

$15,000 


7.500 

7.500 

$15,000 





$0 


Total Program Administration 


$4,721,312 


$4,786,091 


$64,779 



Comments 

l.The proposed FY 2002-03 MOCD and MOH Program Administration 
budget of $4,786,091 is $64,779 or 1.4 percent more than the FY 2001-02 
Program Administration budget of $4,721,312. 

2. In FY 2002-2003, the CDBG, HOME Program, and ESG budgets contain 
72 positions, which is unchanged from the number of positions included in 
the FY 2001-2002 budgets. Currently, MOH has one vacant Special 
Assistant XVI position at an annual salary and fringe benefit cost of 
$126,199, which serves as the Deputy Director, and MOCD has one vacant 
9775 Senior Community Specialist II position, at an annual salary and 
fringe benefit cost of $103,843. The 9775 Senior Community Specialist 
position has been vacant for approximately one year. Although the MOH 
Deputy Director (Special Assistant XVI) position has been vacant since 
January of 2002, when the MOH Deputy Director was appointed as the 
MOH Director, the MOH Director position was vacant from August of 2001 
until January of 2002. Therefore, a vacancy has existed in either the MOH 
Director or the MOH Deputy Director position from August 2001 through 
April 2002, a period of nine months. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

The Budget Analyst recommends that the vacant 9775 Senior Community 
Specialist II position in MOCD and the vacant MOH Deputy Director 
(Special Assistant XVI) be deleted If MOH is required to assume any 
subsequent new responsibilities, MOH can request addition of new positions 
at that time. The justification for any new positions will be analyzed by the 
Budget Analyst. Deletion of these two vacant positions will result in FY 
2002-2003 cost savings of $230,042, including salaries and fringe benefits. 

3. MOCD has included new funds at a cost of $22,210 in the proposed FY 
2002-03 budget for two programs, the Rent Relocation Program ($12,588) and 
the Day Labor Program ($9,622). Under the Rent Relocation Program, 
MOCD has established a Rent Relocation Appeals Board to hear cases when 
a residential or commercial tenant is relocated from their rental unit by a 
public agency (such as the SFRA, Port, Airport, or other public agency) and is 
not satisfied with the terms of the relocation. The Rent Relocation Appeals 
Board was transferred from the SFRA to MOCD m FY 2001-02 and MOCD 
absorbed the costs of the Rent Relocation Appeals Board in FY 2001-02. 
MOCD is including $12,288 in the proposed FY 2002-03 budget to cover the 
costs of the Rent Relocation Appeals Board. 

MOCD has included $9,622 in the proposed FY 2002-03 to offset the salary 
costs of the staff person who manages the Day Labor program. The Day 
Labor program provides assistance, such as language classes and referrals to 
public services, to undocumented day laborers seeking temporary work. 

4. The FY 2002-03 Office of Homelessness budget of $70,791 is $50 ; 343, or 
41.6 percent less than the FY 2001-02 budget of $121,134. In FY 2001-02 
MOCD proposed $50,000 in new spending for the Homeless Board, which 
coordinates City homeless programs. In FY 2001-02, the Finance Committee 
placed $50,000 on reserve for the Homeless Board, pending submission of 
budget details for the new Homeless Board costs, which remains on reserve. 

5. In the FY 2001-02 CDBG budget, MOCD included $30,000 for a 
Department of Telecommunications and Information Technology (DTTS) work 
order to develop a new internal computer data base for MOCD, which allows 
nonprofit organizations to submit program and budget data to MOCD 
electronically. In the FY 2002-03 CDBG budget, MOCD has proposed an 
additional $30,000 for the DTIS work order, totaling $60,000 for the DTIS 
work order. 

6. The proposed FY 2002-03 CDBG and HOME budgets include $50,000 for a 
professional services contract to develop an internal MOH and MOH HOME 
program database, of which $30,000 is included in the proposed FY 2002-03 
CDBG budget, which is the subject of this report, and $20,000 is included in 

Board of S&permsors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the proposed FY 2002-03 HOME budget, which is the subject of File 02-0617. 
However, in last year's FY 2001-02 the Board of Supervisors placed S50,000 
on reserve in the CDBG budget and $30,000 on reserve in the HOME budget, 
totaling $80,000 for a professional services contract to develop an internal 
MOH and MOH HOME program computer database, which remains on 
reserve. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends deleting $30,000 in the 
proposed FY 2002-03 CDBG budget, which is the subject of this report, and 
$20,000 in the proposed FY 2002-03 HOME budget, as discussed in File 02- 
0617, totaling $50,000. 



Recommendations 

1. Reduce the FY 2002-03 Program Administration budget by $260,042, from 
the proposed amount of $4,786,091 to $4,526,049 to reflect (a) the deletion of 
two vacant positions with total salary and fringe benefit costs of $230,042, as 
noted in Comment 2, and (b) the deletion of $30,000 for a professional 
services contract to develop an internal MOH and MOH HOME computer 
database, as noted in Comment 6. 

2. Approve $4,526,049 of the requested $4,786,091 in continuing Program 
Administration funding. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section XTV: Planning and Capacity - $611.263 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $611,263 in FY 2002-03 for planning and 
capacity building, a decrease of $9,000 or approximately 1.5 percent, from the 
FY 2001-02 budget allocation of $620,263. This category provides funds to 
agencies to support short- and long-range planning and development. 

Descriptions of the proposed Planning and Capacity Building programs that 
would receive new or increased funding are as follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Fundin 


g and New 


Programs 


Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 

2002-2003 

Budget 


MOCD Planning & Capacity 
Building Pool 


$ 200,000 


$ 308,983 


S 108,983 


Compasspoint Nonprofit Services 

To provide technical assistance services 
to MOCD grantees (forums on nonprofit 
issues and vouchers to attend 
workshops and classes) 





40,125 


40,125 


Filipino-American Development 
Foundation 

To conduct neighborhood study focusing 
on neighborhood needs and programs 
for the proposed Bayanihan Community 
Center. 





10,000 


10,000 


Life Frames, Inc. 

To develop conceptual master plan to 
transform two adjacent public school 
sites in south Bernal Heights into 
ecological community learning 
environments. 





15,000 


15,000 


North of Market Senior Services 

To plan and implement board and staff 
training and develop strategic plan. 





15.000 


15,000 


Volunteer Center of SF 

To recruit and refer board members and 
volunteers, build the capacity of MOCD- 
funded agencies; Build capacity of 
agencies to productively use board 
members and volunteers. 





29,600 


29,600 


Subtotal 


$ 200,000 


$ 418,708 


$ 218,708 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

The following table is a summary of MOCD's Proposed FY 2002-03 funding 
totals for the Planning and Capacity Building Program. 

Proposed Planning and Capacity Building Budget for FY 2002-2003 





Prior Year 






Funding 


Continued 




less 


and New or 




Decreases 


Increased 


Funding Description 


in FY 


Funding in 




2002-2003 


FY' 2002- 




Funding 


2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


S 620,263 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(227.708) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




8392,555 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 




218.708 


or New Programs 






Total Funding for FY 2002-2003 




§611,263 



Comments 

1. According to Ms. Yee, funding for planning and capacity building is 
provided to community organizations on a one-time basis for one of two 
purposes: (a) to assist with organizational development, such as board and 
staff training, and strategic planning, or (b) to assist in the development of 
evaluations, feasibility studies and plans for projects. 

2. According to Ms. Yee, for programmatic and administrative clarity, the 
MOCD Planning Capacity Building Pool which assists in the development of 
evaluations, feasibility studies and plans for projects and the Technical 
Assistance Pool which provides funds to assist with organizational 
development, would be consolidated into one pool, the FY 2002-03 MOCD 
Planning Capacity Building Pool. The requested FY 2002-03 Planning and 
Capacity Building Pool allocation is $308,983, as noted above in the 
Summary of Programs with Increased Funding and New Program table, and 
would provide community organizations with funds for both planning and 
capacity building and technical assistance through a proposal submission and 
review process during the FY 2002-03 program year. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve the requested FY 2002-03 Planning and Capacity Building 
allocation of $392,555 for continuing programs. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

2. Approval of funding for new or increased programs in the amount of 
$218,708 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Section XV: Program Income-Funded Activities- S7. 484. Oil 

Federal HUD regulations require that anticipated income to MOCD, MOH. 
and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) from CDBG programs 
in FY 2002-2003 be allocated through the submission of the FY 2002-2003 
application for CDBG funds. MOCD, MOH, and SFRA anticipate program 
income in the amount of 87,484,011 in FY 2002-2003 from the repayment of 
economic development loans, housing rehabilitation loans, and land sales and 
rental income. 

The proposed FY 2002-2003 budget for Program Income-Funded Activities is 

as follows: 



Summary of Programs with Increased Fundin 


o 




Program 


FY 2001- 

2002 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2002- 

2003 
Budget 


Increases 

in FY 2002- 

2003 

Budget 


MOCD 108 Economic Development 
Loan Repayment 

Provides loans of 8100,000 or more to 
business that are determined to be 
consistent with the Programs economic 
development initiatives 


S 2,478,275 


$3,211,675 


S 733,400 


MOH CHRP Revolving Loan 
Program 

Provides financial and technical 
assistance to eligible low-income home 
owners 


240,000 


2.000,000 


1,760,000 


SFRA Central Relocation Services 

Provides temporary housing assistance 
to fire victims 


100,000 


266,000 


166,000 


Subtotal 


$2,818,275 


$5,4/7,675 


82,659,400 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Proposed Program Income-Funded Activities Budget, FY 2002-2003 



Funding Description 


Prior Year 
Funding 

less 
Decreases 

in FY 
2002-2003 
Funding 


Continued 

and New or 

Increased 

Funding in 

FY 2002- 

2003 


Total Funding for Prior Year 


$11,291,433 




Summary of Decreased Funding from Prior Year 


(6.466.822) 




Subtotal Continued Funding from Prior Year 




84,824,611 


Summary of Increased Funding in Existing Programs 
or New Programs 




2.459,400 


Total Funding in FY 2002-2003 




$7,484,011 



Comments 



1. The total $6,466,822 decrease in the FY 2002-2003 Program Income- 
Funded Activities budget includes (a) a $1,466,000 decrease in the San 
Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) Economic Development program, 
Job Training program, and General Program Administration, (b) a 
$5,000,000 decrease in the Capital Improvement Revolving Loan Fund, and 
(c) a $822 decrease in scheduled repayments for loans made for childcare 
facilities projects. In FY 2002-2003, SFRA Economic Development program, 
Job Training program, and General Program Administration funds have been 
transferred to the SFRA budget, 

2. The Capital Improvement Revolving Loan Fund was a one-time revolving 
loan fund with a fund balance of $5,000,000 in FY 2001-2002. This fund is 
used as a revolving loan fund to pay the capital costs of constructing or 
renovating office space for nonprofit organizations, and proceeds from loan 
repayments are re-deposited into the revolving fund. In FY 2002-2003, 
MOCD has not budgeted any new monies for the Capital Improvement 
Revolving Loan Fund. According to Mr. Sanders, MOCD has established 
criteria for reviewing loan applications and approving loans. Mr. Sanders 
states that MOCD is reviewing four organizations (Nihonmachi Legal 
Outreach, North of Market Senior Services, Visitacion Valley Community 
Center, and Mercy Housing Corporation) for Capital Improvement Revolving 
Loans, totaling approximately $4,800,000. 

3. The MOH Community Housing Rehabilitation Program (CHRP) Revolving 
Loans provides financial and technical assistance to eligible low-income home 
owners. The $1,760,000 increase in the MOH CHRP Revolving Loan, from 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

$240,000 in FY 2001-02 to $2,000,000 in FY 2002-2003, reflects the actual 
rate of loan repayments in FY 2001-02. 

Recommendations 

1. Approval of $2,459,400 in new funding is a policy matter for the Board of 

Supervisors. 

2. Approve $4,824,611 in continued funding. 






Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

45 



Attachment 1 
Page 1 of 9 



O — cc 



N fN M n - 



r-~, CO O (N O 5 

-T © C; CO O^ O 

u-T o o" d* o oo" 

o oo 



(N <N r*-, 






a ^-s => o 



o — o o o 



o — co r^ -si- o c 



o O O O cc 



OOroCOOtNOO 

co r*^ tt © q co_ q q 
cc" — irT o" o' O o" oo" 
^ co m ^ - r-ooo 

(N f*1 — (N N O (N 



fN| — — 



— fN r^4 



— "^ w-i O 



ofr © O © 

p- r- © 55 

•■vi- ^ © u-> 

rs) o-j rsi 



o < 



o — ^: 





o 
U 








o 

u 


B 

o 

09 


o 
U 
c 














o 


u 


'J 


c 








u 


Q. 


E 



















£ 


I" 




=- 




jf 


U 


~o 












^ 




U 


o 


£ 


u 


B 




a 


E 


Q 






u 








— 


-o 


Q 


"^ 


P 


EB 




4 


_c 


j 


2 


I 


o 


a. 

BO 




c 
o 

> 


u 

Q 


5 

J3 








o 












o 


Q 
>< 










CJ 


"a 


U 


3. 


O 





3 


Z 










u 


U 






5 





§ 


1 


Q 

2 


B 


5 


_5 






























E 


S 


E 


£ 


c 


3 


S 


"g 



O Q. O ■- 



>s >, >> 

5 5 o 



< < < 

so a so 



ids£ 



o 5 E I 



c — r 

■ U. 3 5 

W W i ^ 



46 



©©3m©33©3©© 

333r-3©33- 



© c s © o 

3 C 3 m 3 
cr, o o r-j © 



O ro — 



o o o 



<"" CI 
-1 



OOOinOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 





.= 


3 


E 


O 

e 




o 


o 


O r- 


3 


5 


3 


3 


— 
3 


Si 


•£■ 


OJ 


s 


OX 


o_ 


sj 


©„ ■* 


— 


3_ 


in 


3_ 


3 


ea 










c" 


t— " 




3 


©' 


10 




3' 


^ 


a 


l~4 






o 


rn 




3 








-T 




u 


e 


u 


o 




t/5 




















e 


ec 


e 


a 


















3 


H 


r-l 


"3 


r^ 


C9 



















O O fN 3 3 3 O 
" O ■* O ©_ in O v= 
3" -3-" m" 3' ■q-" O rn 



00300033 
(N0O33000CC 



© © O OC OJ O © 



sr a 



O (3 C ^T O O 



O © O O 3 
© © CN O 3 
O 3 -T © 3 



©oooooooo© 



3©©0m3©000 



3 m O o 



3 3 3 3 3 



10 m — 3 



Sn 3 3 O 3 O 



— TO© 



© © 3 © © 3 © 

© © © m © © --a- 









OS - o 
Z 3 = 



o w oj a o 3 
>• > U U U X Z 



o o o o > 



o o o e 's 9 'S 



>. „ o 



00 o o o o 



u o 



« x u £ u 
i= 8 S K, 

I = 1 1 I • 

o = J2 « g- 



3 


M 


a 


3) 


BO 


a 



Z 


D 


3 




u 


O 


U 


U 


= 


u 


_J 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


u 
























e 








O 




a 





9 













b 


I 


1 


g 


E 


U 


3 



- 3 ra — — ~ 



5 5 Q o - 



C S "9 u 



c = — 



CJ — — 

"3 e .2 

= U o 

■5 < 



2 2 



.z .z .3! o o 5 
<i 2: c c- co c/5 



" £ 



U U 
2 2 



■s :=. I < -S * 

2 U H --. Z a 

- _ c = Ji o 

5 3 j= = °o 5 



47 



< * 



2 £ 

= 

< 



a ~ O = 



OOOOOOOOQ 
OOOOOOOW-lOO 

W o" O Oh o" no r-T — T © *X 



o er o = ^ ^ — 



3 

U 

~ 

- 

z 

- 

- 
S 

2 

u 

a 

- 
- 



^■- °. °. °- °- °. 
o" o" cC o~ vT r~* 



o o o o c 



ooooooooc 



ooooooco 



s c; o o 



© 0_ C5 C> C8 



W -^ 



r~ -<3- r~ — r~ 



cocooooo 
oooooooo 

OOOCJOOOC 



© o o © o o 
o o c o o o 

© © © O v~t 



— r- -a- r- — i— 



- ^ c 



2_ _ - t/1 



"> U ° .2 

= o' "5. ■** ~ 

o -* j- « t= c 

> J ■: a ^ 1 1 



5 c I- T, 



J S O ■; 



= o 2 

3 '£ M 

r U j2 « 

~ CO o J= 

3 = > £ 

■ ^ •*■ _ 

o m e £■ 

.£ Q. > O (U 

O > U) — 

3 "■ r 2 <2 .S r ~ c w .2 S "■ «i 

c/)c/)ZZ-JUO<e-ULU-^.£c/i 



u 

o '5 



o a o z. 



B >> 

< 1 > 
2> W § 

■= >> '3 

■ — ra 



48 






O O u-i O — 



o o o o o o a 

© o_ © o_ o_ o o 

o r*i m m — r- o 

<-i -a- rj -a- o *» c- 



o m o u-i o 5 o 3 S o Hooooooo 



o — mi — 



Or~CNCSr-| r^, CN CN ro 



O O O m 



2 fa. 
c 

< 



g is n^; - u 

•_ u o i, = - 

O - O B£ © = 

b y N ^ n a 



o o o o o 
o o o o o 
O m o O m 



2 2 2 2 ° ~ 
© c»i *n rn — r- © 



©©©©©©©© 



O © O O m o 



in o O 

DO © O' 

Tj- O T 



© o o o 
© © © © 
© o o o 



o — in p- so 



m c*j c-i 



©©o©©©©5©~ 

©vn©©m©m©© 






2 2 

© © © © ©©©©©© 






2 S 



-a w 



u~, *n (N <--i 



_z o — io 



-^ 


B 






















— 
















































- 


E 


B 


3 


| 


CO 


5, 


u 


u 


- 


< 


»" 



r- ^ O — 



S .= °< "2 ° 



S = -= -J > - 



£ £ K 



< < 



>*>>>, o 







U 


_J 














o 






, 


C 


< 




■^ 




_ 












u 


S 


Ij 










< 


g 


«> 


u 




























r> 










.N 








f> 




















a 


B£ 


Dj 


o 


o 


3 


3 




- 




u 


. 






< 


u 


> 


< 


> 


$; 


— 


- 


< 


ju 


— 


s 



- = « Q < 



- c c/j = = 



3 


CJ 


> 


u 




- 




> 


— 


- 


- 


u 












> 




u. 










tfl 




u 


h» 



£ £> = = M 

o < u U -^ 

= ? f J= = 

§ 3 s i 2 

= = o o - 

< 3 >- > E 

i 1 i 1 i~ i 1 u 

E "E E "c a 

9 3 3 3 9 



_ = u u u 

S 5«g £ 

— = ii 1 o -o ■ 

= 5 I = | 

= - 2 i! .2 t" 

" i! 5 " ° 2 



3 ^ *^ 



-=-=-=J=OOOOOC = 



<< = ~ = = = =:UUUUOOUUUUUUUCll;i^u:o = = 



9. -g 
n ~ ■-> ;r n — 



49 



Fase 5 ot y 



ooooooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooooooooo s 

OOOOOOO^. inOOO^lOOOOOOO _ 



O <•", o cn) 



(N r"-, r~i r- T IT1 — 



00000000 
~ 000000 



ci CO O O O v. O O O CN O u-i 



~ _. DC 

CJ O "= 

eio : 

— rs ;2 
3 i, 



cn — 






OOOOOOO 



OOOOOOOOO 



© O. O, CJ 

a <n" o" of o" o" 

or cn cn in vo r- 

■a w - 



00000000 



OOOOOOOOO 



OOOOOOOO 
00000000 
o_ o_ o_ u->_ o_ o_ o_ o_ 
d cs' m' o o 10 c*l~ co" 

«-) — O0^-u">0\0 



o o 

0000 
°. °. °. — . 
o" o* o" Irt 
vn c-i ^3- cn 



OOOOOOO 

~ OOOOO 



o o o cn o m 

O *n c~i 1*1 ii-1 CN 



OOOOOO 



OOOOOOO 



00000000000000000000000(0000 



°. °. °. . T. °- 

CN O* CN o" Co" CO 



000000000000000 



0000 



OOOOOOOOO 



OOOOOOOOO 



O N h m Tt 



o o\ r- o o 
kn — c\ O -^ 



E 


3 


- 


U 


















< 



























>-, 




>• 


Si 


JJ 


a 


w 


5 








. 


£ 


"S 


> 


3 


g 


- 


Jj 


5 








u 




a 


3 




u 


a: 


; 


r*j 











£ 


<a 


x 


^ 


>< 


_2 


-3 









"« 


O 


,0 

u 




3 


3 
O 


DO 


3 


— 



E/5 





c/j 

Mi 

E 


c 


-5 


ao 

J 


3. 




0) 



to 

CJ-J 


5 

a. 


3 


■o 


u 

CJ 

"2 





O 
> 


s2 







— 

P3 


O 




^ 


^ 


3 


0" 


"^j, 


| 


| 


I 






u 

-J 


-J 


J 



JZ '- o 



o_ un o_ m 

o" o~ cn~ o~ in 



j u £, 



< 2 



— 0000 



2 2 S 



u 




CO 
CJ 


ej 


6 


fe 


c 
U 


u 


s 




>, 


_>i 


B 



B 


CJ 









3: 

G 





cj 
> 




u 




| 


>-. 





2 


> 


c 








y 


Ut 


£ 


- 


CJ 


71 


;; 


= 







BL 


E 


— 


u 

Z 


00 

- 



cj 

_) 

n 





5 
O 


3 




H 

3 
O 

> 


cy 


3 


,3 
ex 


ex 


u 

< 

22 


3 
U 

a 


t/3 


2 
[£ 

B 


5 


J 


3 


1 



Z 


> 


g 


| 


X 


^ 


— 


u 


"3 


^ 





2 


3 


Z 


e 


5 


K 


Cr. 


;y5 


t/3 




c^ 



50 



Pase 6 of 9 



v. cj cn 






= at 
< 2 









T "3- TJ- OC 



T -3- <-, rrj O 



r^ i/-. r^ 



e © 

'_ r*l 

J. U 

_ o 

bi o 



" M — — _ 



o o — = o 






f) N (N 



— fa sa C 



ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

OOO^. OOOOOOOOu-iCC: 



oooooocjoo 



(N o r~ rs r- r~ 



0£ "3" ^ "3" 



o «i o o r- o © 



o c o o o 

- in vn o_ 0_ 
CN* (N w-f »X" 






O f^l — 



°- °- "1 °. s . °. °. 
r- r^j r--' r-> wi 

M f i T t f', 



o o o o o 



V J= 



o _ — 



_ U i ai 

= a J: = 

3 11 = 

u 5 — 5 



F ~ o ^ ~ c. 



— o 



p re « 



— - <-> 



u 

oj j : - 

U .2 

O <J 

o o 

~ o — 

O " 



-3 O 

° 2 



BS 



5 .Sp™ - ■= 



o o — 



j5 .2 « 



C ^ o o 



> £ 

_; a ? u -s -s 

CO CO CO f- ■- r- 



g 1 1 1 :l j 

f- > > > > £ 



^ cj r: 



-2 O = a; 



3* as.?* 



CJ -= — 



;£ :£ > < (J ^ 






C C 3 CJ 



2UO = Si£y- 



51 



Pa°;e 7 ot 9 



so ri c ts 
— IN — 



- 3 

3 — 

< a 



O O O O p O _ 

o o o o o o o 



O in oo sd un -^r 
rn oo rs o rs oc 



Cfl 

2 

2 

- 
< 
- 
z 

i 



o 


^^ 


e 


o 


e 






u 


rs 








- 


- 


f»4 


~ 


_i. 






a 


"^ 


s 




u 




o 


rx 


= 


= 




u 






>~4 


— 














£ 


>• 

Li. 


ca 


> 

Ex. 





o o o o 



o o o o c o o 



O O co O O O C 



o o o o o o o 



o o o o o c o 

O O C C O O 3 



o — _• 



■sou 



o o o o o o c 

= 000 

O O u-i o o o o 

o" © — o" © r-" o" 



o o 

a o 

o o 

o' o" o 



o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 



o ~ z. 



^L 41 _ = — 



— c 
o O 



= a o 

o 5 f 
.9-r.Bj 



u. .js a 



_ i-> n. o o 






- ^Lt - :- 



> > I Q 






: a b OS 



Ego 



<00^4^iZLlfliZC!K 



— = > 
3 ° = 

5 £ £ 



52 



Page 8 of 9 





,— 


o 


— 


o 




61 


g 


o 


.- 


e 


cj: 
























U 




a 


tr 


o 








is 




r-l 


X 






H 








Q 


> 


>■ 








— 


— 





















o 






















r-« 






■»' 


































-r 






cc 


































e 








































o 


















1/1 






















c 








































^ 

M 




C: 


oo 


cc 


— 




CO 


r-4 




CC 

















m 




c; 


O 




3 


^J 








x: 






•* 














r- 




cc 


uc 












r~- 








r~ 


— 












o 


^, 




e 


cc 




o 


■a- 




— 


(N 




r~- 






cc 






*n 


~ 


kC 


f- 




•s 












t~ 








co 








IS 


IS 


TT 








(S 


(A 




IS 












c:_ 






















in 








r- 


o 








r- 
















w* 








</3 




cc 


-r_ 




i 


->C 


S- 


£>" 


£ 




IS 








cc 
r-- 


r- 








c; 


— 










c-c 


r-i 


\i 


CO 


= 




o 


= 




= 






c: 


<S 


~ 


r^ 




S 


o> 


1C 


IS 


r«l 


-T 


= 


o 


— 






o 


t— 


S 


c: 


O 


— _ 






o 






vo 




r-; 


=> 












o 






a 




2 




-r~ 












«* 






c: 


v"i 




o" 


sCc" 


r-' 


r-~ 


■d 


a 


r~ 






r- 








CO 










IS 




-= 






CC 


to 




is' 












~ 






















IS- 


— 




r~ 




~ 


-3- 


O 


o 




I-- 


3 


-r 




c; 




r; 


cc 


o 


~ 




o 


r— 




— 










Os 


c; 




5 






c_c 




c: 


= 




o 








~ 








-CT 




O 


00 








cc 


c; 








© 














r~- 


l/*» 


•o 


o 


— 










r~ 


r- 








r- 












r*- 








IS 




IS 








<s 


bO 




IN 












— 

























— c: C2 o o 



o o 
o o 
o o 



f*l O u~. 



o o o o o o a 
cc o o o o o o 
c; o o o o o o 



c: cc o o 
— = o o 



C- O <n — — cc o o 



o o o o 
o o o o 
o o o o 



a 
u s 

o o 



U - 

o o 

2 2 



o 13 5 O O 



C — £ 6J CJ 



;uu r t 

















u 








>^ 


>^ 






c^ 
































£ 




o 


1 


a. 


: 


| 


^. 


- 


= 


"0 


o 




IS 


- 
s 


U 


2P 


Ji 
~ 




Q 

CJ: 
















£ 




















< 

a 


U 

2 


— 


- 




/^. 


< 


< 




u 


5 


< 


< 


| 


5 


B 


rc 


L 


U 




U 














a 


c 








HI 




2 


o 


~ 


z 


z 


o 


o 


O 


Z 


~ 


o 


^ 


~ 






















^ 














-^ 


^ 


^ 


t£ 


^ 


rfi 


i; 


^ 


^ 


^ 


■J-. 


^: 


^ 


^ 


C/3 


(/3 



5 1 =- - 

till 

= = = 



t < 



5 2 

_ c o 



o S- < = £ S " 



c .= — jr 



3 Si 



p o^^^^"^ ? 



O 5 =■ 



'z: z > s 



53 



- o 



< 2 



o a o — o 
m o o o o 






C/5 

z 

O 

H 

< 

a 
z 

Ed 
§ 

o 
U 

Ed 

2 
ci, 
o 
;* 

OS 

«! 
§ 
S 

s 

S 

u 

O 

a: 



- 
- 






O O O O 

o o o o 

o o s ~ 



O SS O "T 



IO o o o o 

o o o o 



o r~ <N o 



0300000300 



-3 ■» O r- 



o 


„ 








O 






CC 


-T 




=C 




-T 








r- 


M 




</) 




B 


r»3 


e 


m 


e 


T 










r- 


C^ 










I— 




i-i 




tA 





^ 


a. 


o 


b 


o 


c/j 


> 


u 




Sj 


ao 


£ 




T3 


| 


=- 


3 


'i 


o 


'jc 


£ 


z 


M 


— 


LU 


U 

























■yj 












a 














t/3 






U 


□ 


Q 


Q 


Q 


U 


u 


u 


U 


U 


~ 


< 











o 


~ 


— 



o s — 



« 2 Q 



< < < 

£ £ o 

c/5 -z <si in w f— 



54 



Mayor's Office of Community Development 

Community Development Block Grant Program 

Schedule of Balances 



Attachment II 



Funding 
Year 


Approved 

HUD 

Entitlement 


Fund Balance 






197S 


22.158.0CC | 




I 


1976 


28.79B.CC0 









1977 


28.971.528 









1978 


25.730.431 









1979 


26.897.506 









1980 


28.923.276 









1981 


27.938.945 











1982 


22.892,505 











1983 


21.725.000 











1984 


21.892.000 











1985 


21.355.000 











1986 


17.623.000 











1987 


17.701, COO 











1988 


16.122.CO0 











1989 


16,771.000 











1990 


16.439.CC0 











1991 


18.37S.CC0 











1992 


19.592.CC0 











1993 


22, 041. CCO 


112,679 


112.579 In contracts underway. 






1994 


24.166.CC0 










1995 


26.985.CC0 


514,672 


$363,085 in contracts underway. Balance committed to projects under review 






1996 


26. 180. CCO 


471.298 


$471,298 in contracts underway. 






1997 


25,765, CCO 


614,354 


$614,354 in contracts underway. | 




1998 


24.968.CC0 


1.279,475 


$447,621 in contracts underway. Balance committed to projects under review. 






1999 


25.123.CCO 


1.780,574 


$1,235,556 in contracts underway. 3aJar.ce committed to protects jnder review 




2000 


24.925.CC0 


4,826,369 


$3,797,567 in contracts underway. Balance committed to projects under review. 




2001 


25.820 .COO 


9,815,715 


$4,046,546 in contracts underway. Balance committed to projects under review 


















625,880,191 


19,417,136 






















































































































































I 








I 


I I 



S A/CDBG BALANCES (Drawdown. Encumbrances. Fund Balance) 



55 



4/25/20022 15 PM 



APR-25-2032 1^=21 



4152523110 



s&y. 



P. 02 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Clerk: Gail Johnson 



Wednesday, May 08, 2002 



12:30 PM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano. 



President Ammiano appointed himself to serve as a member of the Finance Committee at today's meeting. 

MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 12:40 p.m. 
020640 [Historical Property Contract for 460 Bush Street - Fire Department Old Station No. 2] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Resolution under Chapter 71 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, approving an historical property 
contract between Alice Ross Carey, the owner of San Francisco Landmark No. 143 located at 460 Bush Street 
(Fire Department Old Station No. 2) and the City and County of San Francisco; authorizing the Director of 
Planning and the Assessor to execute the historical property contract. 
4/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Jeffrey Tully. Planning Department: Matthew 
Thomas, Office of the Assessor-Recorder; Charles Chase, Executive Director, San Francisco Architectural 
Heritage; Alice Ross Carey. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020476 |Redevelopment Agency's Financial and Performance Reports] 

Hearing to consider the Redevelopment Agency's financial and performance reports for the quarter ending 

December 31, 2001 and project status report for fiscal year 2001/02, pursuant to Resolution No. 654-96. 

(Redevelopment Agency) 

4/1/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Budget Committee. 

4/26/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. File referred to Budget Committee in error. 

Speakers: None. 

FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



PM on I 2 II J 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 8, 2002 



020538 [Amending District Attorney's Revolving Loan Funds from State Board of Control] 

Resolution authorizing the District Attorney to amend the current agreement in the amount of $75,000 which 
has been allocated from the Victim Compensation and Governing Claims Board (formerly known as the State 
Board of Control), an agent of the State of California, for a revolving loan fund to be used to pay for verified 
funeral/burial expenses and emergency relocation for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. (District 
Attorney) 

4/12/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Linda Alexander, Victim Witness Assistance Program, District 
Attorney's Office. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020486 [Supplemental Appropriation, Department of Elections] 

Ordinance appropriating $2,167,924 of the General Reserve to fund other current expenses, materials and 

supplies, and equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2001-02. (Finance Committee) 

3/20/02, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Divided from File 020248. 

3/20/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/1/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Joe Skeltar, Thrifty Rental Car. 

Continued to 5/8/02. 

Heard in Committee. Edward Harrington, Controller; Ara Minasian, Department of Administrative Services; 
Charles Dwinell, Thrifty Rent A Car; John Bardis. 

Question divided. Question concerning Professional and Specialized Services ($57,512) and Materials and 
Supplies ($129,232) severed and considered separately. See File 020767. 
DIVIDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $1,981,180 of the General Reserve to fund other current expenses and materials and 
supplies for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2001-02. (Finance Committee) 
REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020767 (Supplemental Appropriation, Department of Elections] 

Ordinance appropriating $186,744 of the General Reserve to fund professional services and materials and 
supplies for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2001-02. (Elections Department) 

Divided from File 020248. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020664 [Reserved Funds, SF LAFCO] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (SF 

LAFCO), in the amount of $125,000, to support budget expenditures in fiscal year 2001-02. 

4/24/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/1/02, SUBSTITUTED. Executive Officer of SF LAFCO submitted an amended request. 

5/6/02, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $125,000 recommended. 
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS A MOTION. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:27 PM on 3/2/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 8, 2002 

Motion releasing $125,000 placed on Board of Supervisors Reserve for the San Francisco Local Agency 
Formation Commission (SF LAFCO) to pay for energy consulting services and legal serivces. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020241 [2002 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive] 

Hearing to consider applications from various agencies to participate in the 2002 Annual Joint Fundraising 

Drive. 

2/15/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 2/15/02 - From Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. 

2/15/02 - From Community Health Charities 

2/20/02 - From Mayor's Office of Homelessness 

2/22/02 - From Local Independent Charities of America 

2/27/02 - From Earth Share of California 

2/28/02 - From International Service Agencies 

2/28/02 - From United Way of the Bay Area 

3/01/02 - From Private Industry Council of San Francisco 

3/15/02 - From San Francisco Youth Fund 

4/02/02 - From Local Independent Charities of America, amended list of 2002 LIC member Charities 

4/17/02, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ryan Brooks, 

Director, Deepartment of Administrative Services; Peg Stevenson , Controller's Office; Jeff Mori, San Francisco Youth Fund; Theodore 

Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Sandra Carr, Bay Area Black United Fund; Jennifer Dumey, Local Independent Chanties; Jim Hill, 

International Service Agencies; Michael Gulley, United Way of the Bay Area; Captain John Ehrlich, Police Department, Chair of the 

Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: George Smith, Director, Mayor's Office of Homelessness. 
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS A RESOLUTION. 

Resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2002 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive for 
officers and employees of the City and County of San Francisco. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



011178 [Motor Vehicle for Hire Permit Filing Fees and License Fees] 

Ordinance amending Sections 2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the Police Code to amend schedules for motor vehicle for 
hire permit filing fees and license fees. (Taxi Commission) 
8/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
5/1/02, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. 
Continued to 5/8/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Naomi 
Little, Executive Director, Taxicab Commission. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 

Transferred to Budget Committee. 
REFERRED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 5:20 /' W 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 8, 2002 



011716 [Airport Trip Fee Pass Through] 
Supervisors Daly, Nevvsom 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code by amending Article 16, Section 1 135 (a) to allow taxicab 
drivers to collect a $2.00 pass through fee from passengers when a trip fee is incurred at San Francisco 
International Airport. (Airport Commission) 
9/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
5/1/02, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. 
Continued to 5/8/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Administrator, Governmental 
Affairs, Airport; Inspector Farrell Suslow, Taxicab Commission; Commissioner Mary McGuire, Taxicab 
Commission; Ruach Graffis, United Taxicab Workers; Barry Taranto, United Taxicab Workers; Mark 
Gruberg, United Taxicab Workers. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 2:08 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 5:28 PM on 3/2/04 



Ux 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 
Susan Horn 
of san FMain Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



May 2, 2002 



TO: '/Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 02-0640 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAY 7 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Office of the Assessor/Recorder 

Resolution under Chapter 71 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code, approving an historical property 
contract between Alice Ross Carey, the owner of San 
Francisco Landmark No. 143 located at 460 Bush Street 
(Fire Department Old Station No. 2) and the City and 
County of San Francisco; authorizing the Director of 
Planning and the Assessor to execute the historical 
property contract. 

The Mills Act, a State of California law, also called the 
Historical Property Contract Act, authorizes city and 
county governments to enter into a contract for a 
minimum of ten years with the owner of a qualified 
historical property. The property owner must agree to 
rehabilitate, restore, preserve, and maintain the property. 
In return, the property owner would receive a Property 
Tax reduction from a city or county, in accordance with 
the California Revenue and Taxation Code. The Property 
Tax reduction would continue to be received by a new 
owner until the expiration date of the contract, if the 
property is sold within the term of a historic property 
contract. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



In 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the adoption 
of Chapter 71 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
to implement the provisions of the Mills Act in 1996 (File 
191-96). Under the Administrative Code, Chapter 71, 
qualifying historical properties are (a) those properties 
that are individually listed in the National Register of 
Historic Places and/or (b) those properties that have been 
designated as a City Landmark by the Landmarks 
Preservation Advisory Board. 

This resolution would authorize an historical property 
contract under the Mills Act between the City and the 
owner of 460 Bush Street, Ms. Alice Ross Carey, for a 10- 
year period. The 460 Bush Street building is a commercial 
office building and is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail 
District). Under this contract, the owner of 460 Bush 
Street would be required to repair, rehabilitate and 
maintain the property at her own expense in return for 
receiving a Property Tax reduction. 

Mr. Jeffrey Tully of the Planning Department advises 
that the subject property has been designated as a City 
Landmark by the City's Landmarks Preservation 
Advisory Board and is in the process of being listed in the 
National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, this 
property is eligible for Mills Act consideration as a 
historical property in accordance with the Administrative 
Code. The subject historical property contract requires 
that the owner, Ms. Carey, of 460 Bush Street (Fire 
Department Old Station No. 2) complete the cleaning and 
rehabilitation of the exterior of the building at an 
estimated cost of $35,000. This cost was estimated by Ms. 
Carey in her Mills Act application to the Planning 
Department, according to Mr. Tully. Attachment I, 
provided by the Planning Department is the 
rehabilitation program and maintenance plan for 460 
Bush Street under the Mills Act. 

In addition, the subject historic property contract provides 
that the property owner: 

• maintain the historic property in accordance with 
established preservation techniques and standards; 

• replace and repair any damaged areas should the 
historic property incur damages to 50 percent or less of 
the historic property; 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

• secure adequate property insurance to cover 100 
percent of replacement cost of the historic property; 

• permit periodic examination of the exterior and 
interior of the historic property; and 

• pay a cancellation fee of 12.5 percent of the fair 
market value of the historic property at the time of 
cancellation if the property owner terminates the 
contract before the expiration of the 10-year contract 
or if the City determines that the property owner 
breached any condition or covenant of the contract. 

Attachment II, provided by the Assessor's Office describes 
the method for estimating the reduction in Property 
Taxes for the historical property under the Mills Act. 
Under the Mills Act, the Property Tax reductions would 
be recalculated every year for the 10 year duration of the 
historical property contract. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Tully reports that the subject property at 460 

Bush Street is San Francisco Landmark No. 143 and is 
considered a significant historic building under the 
Planning Code. Mr. Tully further reports that the subject 
property at 460 Bush Street, or San Francisco Fire 
Department Old Station No. 2, was built in 1908 
following the 1906 earthquake. Mr. Tully reports that the 
Planning Commission adopted a resolution to approve the 
Mills Act Historical Property Contract for 460 Bush 
Street and to recommend approval of the subject 
historical property contract to the Board of Supervisors on 
April 18, 2002. The Landmarks Preservation Advisory 
Board previously adopted a resolution recommending that 
the Planning Commission approve this subject Mills Act 
Historical Property Contract on March 20, 2002. 

2. The proposed historical property contract between the 
owner of 460 Bush Street and the City requires that the 
owner of 460 Bush Street (a) complete an exterior 
cleaning and rehabilitation project at an estimated cost of 
535,000, (b) complete all work through the application of 
established preservation techniques and standards, (c) 
begin the work within six months of the approval of the 
contract, (d) complete the work within three years of the 
approval of the contract, and (e) maintain 460 Bush 
Street in accordance with established preservation 
techniques and standards. Attachment III, provided by 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



the Planning Department, explains that the Planning 
Department is responsible for ensuring that the owner of 
460 Bush Street complies with the provisions of the 
historical property contract. 

3. As shown in Attachment IV, provided by the Assessor's 
Office, the current assessed value of 460 Bush Street is 
$1,910,174 and the current estimated Property Taxes for 
the 460 Bush Street property is $21,470, based on the FY 
2001-2002 Property Tax rate of $1,124 per $100 of 
assessed value. Under the Mills Act, 460 Bush would 
have an assessed value of an estimated $1,050,000 
instead of $1,910,174, and the estimated Property Tax 
would be $11,802 instead of $21,470 if the property were 
not designated as a qualified historic property, thereby 
resulting in a Property Tax reduction to the owner of 45 
percent, or $9,668. 

4. If this resolution is approved, the historical property 
contract for 460 Bush Street would be the first such 
historical property contract approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

5. Under the current Administrative Code those 
properties individually listed in the National Register of 
Historic Places and those designated as a City Landmark 
would qualify for Mills Act consideration for Property Tax 
reductions, as stated above. According to Mr. Tully, an 
estimated additional 350 qualified historic properties 
could be eligible for Property Tax reductions in San 
Francisco under the Mills Act because they are currently 
individually listed in the National Register of Historic 
Places and/or designated as a City Landmark. 

6. According to Mr. John Scott of the Assessor's Office, 
the Assessor's Office is unable at this time to provide the 
estimated annual Property Tax revenue reduction to the 
City if the Board of Supervisors were to approve historical 
property contracts under the Mills Act for the estimated 
additional 350 qualified historic properties in San 
Francisco. Mr. Scott advises that the Assessor's Office 
would require specific information for each of the 
estimated 350 historic properties. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 3 
Mills Act Application - Rehabilitation Program 
SFFD Old Engine Co. No. 2 
460 Bush Street 
San Francisco CA 

August 30, 2001/ Revised February 22, 2002 

General - The scope of work is for the front and rear 
elevations. Specifications include protection of all historic 
materials during construction. 

Non Cuprous Metal Surfaces - All metal surfaces except copper 
include aluminum doors, transoms and sidelights, galvanized 
metal windows, ornamental metal rail at balustrade, fire alarm 
bell, and gas meter room vents. Scope of work includes cleaning 
and preparing surfaces for paint, rust removal, patching, 
priming and painting. Ferrous metal will be primed with a zinc- 
rich primer within four hours of cleaning. 

Cuprous Metal Surfaces - Cuprous metal includes copper clad fan 
light above entry and cooper clad side entry door. Scope of work 
includes removal of paint and return to original copper finish. 
Original copper will not be coated, but left to naturally 
acquire a patina. 

Granite Surfaces - Granite occurs on the front facade. Scope 
includes repair of cracks, spalls and holes resulting from 
removed anchors. Stone will be cleaned with a mild chemical 
cleaning agent, then spot cleaned in stained areas. A 
sacrificial graffiti coating will be tested on one unit for 
eleven months. At that time we will inspect the stone and apply 
to ground level surfaces only if appropriate. 

Brick surfaces - Brick occurs on the rear facade. The scope 
includes removal of graffiti, miscellaneous metal, bolts, and 
telephone wire. Graffiti will be removed with chemicals using 
the gentlest means possible. The remainder will be removed by 
mechanical means. 

Joints - Joints occur between dissimilar materials, at ferrous 
metal assemblies; and between exterior surface wall openings and 
windows, doors, vents, louvers etc. Scope of work includes new 
sealant wich backer materials where necessary. Material 
specified will not damage substrate and will not stain or damage 
adjacent surfaces. 

Bird Control - Netting is specified between the hose drying 
tower and the adjacent building. Birds currently roosting in 
this area will be removed prior to installation. 

Source: Mills Act Application for 460 Bush Street 
6 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 

Mills Act Application - Maintenance Plan 
SSFD Old Engine Co. No. 2 
460 Bush Street 
San Francisco CA 

August 30, 2001/ Revised February 22 2002 

The following Maintenance Plan was prepared by Carey & Co. Inc. 
Historic Preservation Architects. The program will commence upon 
completion of the Exterior Cleaning and Rehabilitation Project 
(Exhibit B) . 

Exterior 
Graffiti 

Inspect : Daily 

Remove: As Occurs on front facade. 

Granite - Front Elevation 

Inspect: Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately every 10 - 15 years 

Clean with non-ionic detergent and spot clean with chemical 

cleaner after tests determine products selected do not damage 

substrate. Patch cracks and spalls. Repoint at missing mortar. 

Seal joints at dissimilar materials. 

Brick - Rear Elevation 

Inspect: Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately every 10-15 years 

Clean with non-ionic detergent and spot clean with chemical 

cleaner after tests determine products selected do not damage 

substrate. Patch cracks and spalls. Repoint at missing mortar. 

Ferrous Metal and Aluminum 

Inspect : Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately every 7 to 10 years 

Inspect for corrosion, paint failure. 

Remove rust and loose or peeling paint. Prime with zinc- rich 

primer. Paint. Seal joints at dissimilar materials. 

Glass and Glazing 

Inspect: Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately every 5 to 7 years 
Inspect for missing and loose compound, moisture penetration, 
Remove loose glazing compound. Reglaze where missing. Determine 
source of moisture and mitigate. 

Source: Mills Act Application for 460 Bush Street 



Old Engine Co. No. 2 - Maintenance Plan - Page 2 Attachment I 

Page 3 of 3 

Gutters and Drain 

Inspect : Annually 

Maintain: Annually 

Inspect drain and gutters for obstructions, failure. Test for 

leaks . 

Clean, repair or replace damaged areas. 

Roof 

Inspect : Annually 

Maintain: As required, new roof approximately every 15 years 
Inspect roof for membrane failure, and separation of joints. 
Repair minor damage. Re -roof as required. 

Skylights 

Inspect: Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately every 5 to 7 years 

Inspect for missing and loose compound, moisture penetration, 

Remove loose glazing compound. 

Reglaze where missing. Determine source of moisture and 

mitigate . 

Bird Control 

Inspect: Annually 

Maintain: Annually 

Inspect for evidence of birds dropping where undesirable. Repair 

existing netting if damaged. Add additional control if required. 

Interior 
Plaster 

Inspect : Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately every 7 to 10 years 
Inspect for loose or detached plaster, cracks and moisture 
damage. If moisture occurs, determine source and mitigate. Patch 
and repair. 

Wood Doors, Trim and Wainscoting 

Inspect : Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately 7 to 10 years 

Inspect for peeling and chipping. Remove loose or peeling paint. 

Prime Paint or seal . 

Wood Flooring 

Inspect : Annually 

Maintain: As required approximately 3 to 5 years in high traffic 

areas . Inspect for wear. Reseal as required. 

Source: Mills Act Application for 460 Bush Street 




Attachment II 

City and County of San Francisco DORIS M. WARD 

Office of the Assessor-Recorder Assessor-Recorder 



TO: Sarah Graham 5/1/2002 

FROM: Matthew Thomas 



"Mills Act" Income Approach is dictated by Revenue & Taxation Code 439 and Government 
Code 405. 

The following steps are used in valuing "Mills Act" properties. 

1 . Estimate current market value of the land and improvements to develop the current 
market allocation to be used in the weighted capitalization rate. 

2. Derive net income using standard methods. 

3. Develop capitalization rate which contains the following components: 

A. Interest Rate (set by SBE annually) 

B. Historic Risk Rate (set in Code at 4%) 

C. County Tax Rate 

D. Amortization Rate, Imps only; 1/XX, remaining economic life 

These are be added together in the following manner- 
Land: A+B+C= Land Capitalization Rate 
Imps: A+B+C+D= Improvement Capitalization Rate 

4. Find the weighted capitalization rate to be used in the valuation, multiply each cap. rate 
(land and imp) by the percent of land/imp allocation found in #1 . Add these two 
together. 

5. Value by dividing the net income by the weighted cap. rate. 

The property tax reduction for 460 Bush Street for the 2001 Roll is estimated at S9,670. 



City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 190 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4698 a. Fax: (415)554-7151 




Attachment III 



PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County ot San Francisco • 1660 Mission Street, Suite £00 • San Francisco, California • 9-1103-2414 



mass ni^bcr 
(415)553-6378 



DIRECTORS 0FHC2 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PLANNING DffORMATIOX 
7HCNE; 5J9-6J1 1 i*SONE: <li-6]2Q PHONE- JSE-4377 



*TH FLOOR 
FAX: 551-&C6 



57H FLOOR 
FAX: 5 '3-W09 



MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
FAX: Jif-5091 



commission calendar 

INTO: 559-C4:: 

intsinet website 

WWW SFCOV.ORG/PLaXNING 



MEMO RANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 
RE: 



May 1 , 2002 

Harvey M. Rose 
Budget Analyst 
Board of Supervisors 
1390 Market Street 

Gerald G. Green, Planning Directo 



ENFORCEMENT OF MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT, 460 
BUSH STREET, S.F.F.D. OLD ENGINE CO. NO. 2, SAN FRANCISCO 
LANDMARK NO. 143. 



The purpose of this memo is to confirm the Planning Department's commitment to the 
enforcement of the conditions of the Mills Act historical property contract between the City and 
County of San Francisco and the property owner, Alice Ross Carey. As per the conditions of the 
Mills Act, a long-term maintenance plan has been developed on the resource. 

Upon completion of the exterior rehabilitation work, the maintenance plan for 460 Bush Street 
will commence, providing the Planning Department, in consultation with the Tax Assessor's 
office the ability to perform yearly inspections of the resource. These inspections will ensure that 
elements of the long-term maintenance plan and Mills Act historical property contract are 
enforced. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. 



10 



Attachment IV 



"Mills Act" Property Valuation 
Parcel: 270-41 

Address: 460 Bush Street 

Current Market Value: 51,900,000 

Current Land Value: S1 ,600,000 

Assessed Value for 2002 Lien Date: 51,910,174 

Estimated tax by Assessed Value: ($1,910,174x1.12' $21,470 



Current Market Allocation: 
Land: S1, 600,000 

Improvemenl $300,000 
Total: S1, 900, 000 



84% of total value 
16% of total value 



Current Rental Income: 



Number of square feet 




7,562 


Rent per square foot annually 




$28 


Total rental income 




$211,736 


Less 5% vacancy & collection 




$10,587 


Effective gross Income 




$201,149 


Expenses @ $8.00/square foot 




$60,496 


Net Operating Income 




$140,653 


Capitalization Rate Components: 






Interest (set by Board) 


8.000% 




Historical interest rate (set by State) 


4.000% 




Property tax component (estimated) 


1.124% 




Amortization, Improvements only 


1 .670% 




Capitalization Rate Summation: 






Land: 8.000% 


Improvements: 


8.000% 


4.000% 




4.000% 


1.124% 




1.124% 


13.124% 




1 .670% 



14.794% 



Weighted Capitalization rate for Mills Act Property Valuation: 

Land: 13.124% x 0.84 equals 0.1105 

Imps: 14.794% x 0.16 equals 0.0234 

Mills Act Capitalization rate for 460 Bush Street = 0.1 339 



Valuation: 

Net Income/Mills Act Capitalization rate = 

Rounded: 



$1,050,616 
S1, 050,000 



2002 Assessed Value 

2002 Value by Mills Act 

Estimated difference in assessed value by "Mills Act" 



$1,910,174 

$1.050,000 

$860,174 



Estimated tax on Assessed Value 
Estimated tax by "Mills Act" 
Estimated tax savings by "Mills Act" 



S21.470 

$11.802 

S9.668 



0.45% 



11 



Source: Assessor 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 02-0476 

Department: Redevelopment Agency 

Item: Hearing to consider the Redevelopment Agency's financial 

and performance reports for the quarter ending December 
31, 2001 and project status report for fiscal year 2001- 
2002, pursuant to Resolution No. 654-96. 

Description: Pursuant to Resolution No. 654-96, the Redevelopment 

Agency has submitted their financial and performance 
reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2001. 
Resolution No. 654-96, approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in July of 1996, requires that the 
Redevelopment Agency submit to the Board of 
Supervisors complete and thorough quarterly reports on 
the status of the Agency's budget, including the status of 
all of the Agency's project and administrative budgets. In 
accordance with Resolution No. 654-96, such Agency 
quarterly reports shall include all budget amendments, 
position additions, and salary increases that may be 
considered by the Agency during the three months 
following the end of the quarter which is the subject of the 
quarterly report, and the Redevelopment Agency agrees 
to not consider for implementation any proposed budget 
amendments, position additions or salary increases 
without having first given to the Board of Supervisors, in 
writing, at least 30 days notice of the Agency's proposed 
changes. 

Comment: The Budget Analyst will fully review the Redevelopment 

Agency's proposed budget for FY 2002-2003, in 
comparison with the current FY 2001-2002 budget, during 
the annual budget review period in June of 2002. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 02-0538 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



District Attorney 

Resolution authorizing the District Attorney to amend the 
current agreement with the State Victim Compensation 
and Governing Claims Board by increasing the amount of 
the Revolving Loan Fund by $45,000, from $30,000 to 
$75,000, to be used to pay for (a) verified funeral and 
burial costs for victims of homicide and (b) emergency 
relocation costs for victims of domestic violence and 
sexual assault. 

$45,000 

State Victim Compensation and Governing Claims Board 

In May of 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
agreement (File 00-0724) between the District Attorney 
and the State Victim Compensation and Governing 
Claims Board which authorized a $30,000 Revolving Loan 
Fund to be used to pay for (a) funeral and burial costs for 
victims of homicide and (b) emergency relocation costs for 
victims of domestic violence. 

The proposed resolution would amend the existing 
agreement with the State Victim Compensation and 
Governing Claims Board by 1) increasing the Revolving 
Loan Fund by $45,000, or 150 percent, from $30,000 to 
$75,000 and 2) adding victims of sexual assault (in 
addition to the victims of domestic violence who are 
already eligible to receive funds for emergency relocation 
costs) to those persons who would be eligible to receive 
payments from the Revolving Loan Fund for emergency 
relocation costs. 

The Revolving Loan Fund enables the District Attorney to 
pay for the funeral and burial expenses for victims of 
homicide and to pay for the emergency relocation costs for 
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The State 
Victim Compensation and Governing Claims Board 
reimburses the Revolving Loan Fund for such payments 
made by the District Attorney to eligible victims, once the 
State fully processes the applications of those eligible 

Board of Supervisors 



Budget 



Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



victims. According to Ms. Linda Alexander of the District 
Attorney's Office, the State typically reimburses the 
Revolving Loan Fund within four weeks from the date the 
District Attorney issues payment. 

1. According to Ms. Alexander, the existing agreement 
between the State Victim Compensation and Governing 
Claims Board expires on June 30, 2002. Ms. Alexander 
reports that the agreement is anticipated to be renewed 
for FY 2002-2003. The proposed resolution also contains a 
provision that authorizes the District Attorney to enter 
into any subsequent agreements with the State Office 
Victim Compensation and Governing Claims Board to 
increase the amount in the Revolving Loan Fund and to 
extend the agreement with the State, without first 
obtaining prior approval from the Board of Supervisors. 
The Budget Analyst, therefore, considers approval of the 
proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. According to Ms. Alexander, the subject Revolving Loan 
Fund would be increased by $45,000, or 150 percent, from 
$30,000 to $75,000, because of the increasing number of 
payments made from the Revolving Loan Fund. The 
attached memorandum from Ms. Alexander further 
explains the purpose of this proposed resolution. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors, as noted in Comment No. 1. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

14 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 1 

Memorandum 

To: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Linda Alexander 

Victim Services - District Attorney's Office 

Date: April 30, 2002 
Amended: May 2, 2002 

Re: Amending resolution for the Victim Compensation and Governing Claims Board 

Revolving Loan Fund administered through the San Francisco District Attorney's Office 



Pursuant to your request, I am submitting this memorandum regarding the need for the resolution 
to add sexual assault victim relocation and increase the current amount of the Revolving Fund. 
I have stated to your analyst on numerous occasions both the necessary information and the need 
to approve this legislation. 

AB 1019 became effective January, 2002. It ensures that eligible victims of sexual assault are 
eligible for emergency awards for the purposes of relocation, just as domestic violence victims 
were granted in the year 2000. As is understood with domestic violence victims, sexual assault 
victims may have need to relocate immediately and do not have either the luxury of time or the 
money to relocate for their own safety. The California Victim Compensation and Governing 
Claims Board (Board) has created revolving funds in larger counties to provide immediate 
relocation for the above mentioned crime victims pursuant to state law. 

The Board additionally approved an increase in the Revolving Fund from 530,000 to 575,000. 
With the increase in awareness of this program and the vast amount of relocations and 
funeral/burials with which we assist crime victims, the Revolving Fund has been drained on 
many times over the past year. On more than one occasion, we have been unable to provide 
necessary funds to eligible crime victims. To avoid the possibility of turning a crime victim 
away in the future, the Board increased the amount to 575,000. Slightly larger counties in the 
area, including Alameda and Santa Clara, have Revolving Funds in the amount of 5100,000. 

In 2000, our office provided 14 emergency claims. In 2001, emergency claims increased to 57. 
As of April 30, 2002, our office has paid 4S emergency claims for victims of domestic violence 
and surviving family members of homicide. From the time that your analyst called me this 
morning until I was able to amend this memorandum as you requested, my staff has come to me 
about four (4) different requests for emergency funds through the Revolving Fund. 
Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the Revolving Fund to pay for all of the requests 
that have come to me today alone. It is imperative that this legislation is passed so that no victim 
that is eligible for this fund is turned away. 

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me 
directly at 553-1827. -^ 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 02-0486 

Note: This item was continued at the May 1, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting, 
pending the final results of the Controller's review of the Department of 
Elections expenditures. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount and 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 



Description: 



Department of Elections 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for $2,167,924 from 
the General Fund Reserve to fund other current expenses, 
materials and supplies and equipment for the Department 
of Elections. 

$2,167,924 General Fund Reserve 

Professional and Specialized Services Contracts $226,641 
Maintenance - Buildings & Improvements 
Maintenance Equipment Contract 
Rents & Leases - Bldgs & Structures 
Rents & Leases - Equipment 
Other Current Expenses 
Judgements - Legal Fees 
Taxes, Licenses and Permits 
Materials and Supplies 
Equipment Loan Payment 
Interdepartmental Recoveries 
Total 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request for 
$2,167,924 would appropriate additional General Fund 
Reserve funds for the Department of Elections to cover 
various non-personnel expenses. As shown above in the 
Budget, the total requested $2,167,924 of additional funds 
would be used for various contracts, maintenance, leases, 
equipment, materials and supplies and various other 
current expenses. In general, these additional expenses 
were incurred by the Department of Elections due to (a) 
greater than anticipated expenses in the November of 2001 
election, (b) a December of 2001 run-off election 1 for the 
City Attorney's Office for which funds were not included in 
the FY 2001-2002 budget (c) additional expenses resulting 
from Proposition E, which included the establishment of a 



3,279 


228,393 


47,157 


269,431 


861,159 


11,652 


1,347 


52,433 


374,767 


91.665 


$2,167,924 



1 See Attachment I which identifies 51,947,834 of costs associated with the December of 2001 City 
Attorney run-off election. Of the total $1,947,834, an estimated $1,141,926 was for personnel 
expenses, which were funded through the previous supplemental appropriation (File 02-0248) and an 
estimated SS05.908 was for non-personnel related expenses, which is the subject of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



new Elections Commission to oversee the Department of 
Elections and which was approved in November of 2001, 
and (d) greater than anticipated expenses in the March 5, 
2002 election. 

On March 20, 2002, the Finance Committee heard a 
$5,658,870 supplemental appropriation request from the 
Department of Elections (File 02-0248). At that time, the 
Finance Committee divided the subject request into 
personnel expenses ($3,490,946) and non-personnel 
expenses ($2,167,924). The Finance Committee then 
reduced the requested $3,490,946 portion of the personnel 
expenses for Temporary Salaries and related fringe benefits 
by $318,939 and approved a supplemental appropriation of 
$3,172,007 for personnel-related expenses for the Elections 
Department. The remaining $2,167,924 of the 
supplemental appropriation that related to non-personnel 
expenses, is now being requested in the subject File 02- 
0486. 

Specifically, the Department is requesting the following: 

Professional and Specialized Services Contracts 
($226,641) 

As previously reported, the Department has expended 
$329,176 of the budgeted $377,408 for professional and 
specialized services. However, the Department anticipates 
incurring a total of $604,049 for such expenses during the 
current fiscal year, which is $226,641, or 60 percent more 
than the amount budgeted. 





Actual 


Total 






Expenses 


Projected 


Projected 




(thru 


Expenses 


Surplus 


Budget 


2/15/02) 


(thru 6/30/02) 


(Deficit) 


$377,408 


8329,176 


$604,049 


$226,641 



According to Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of 
Administrative Services, the additional $226,641 results 
primarily from (a) three contracts for a total of $120,000 for 
public relations and communication services and (b) one 
contract for a total of approximately $100,000 for an 
elections consultant to assist the Department. Therefore a 
total of $220,000 of public relations and consulting 
contracts were awarded. The three public relations and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



communications consultant contracts, their contractual 
dates, hourly rates, and total estimated costs are: (1) 
Melissa A. Mooney dba M2PR, hired from October 15, 2001 
through November 15, 2001, at a rate of $125 per hour for a 
total of 140 hours, plus additional charges, for a total of up 
to $20,000; (2) Cynthia A. MacKenzie, hired from 
November 19, 2001 through March 31, 2002, at a rate of 
$140 per hour for a total of 320 hours, plus additional 
charges, for a total of up to $50,000; and (3) MacKenzie 
Communications, Inc., hired from November 30, 2001 
through March 31, 2002, at a rate of $225 per hour for a 
total of 200 hours, plus additional charges for a total of up 
to $50,000. Additionally, Mr. Minasian advises that in 
August of 2001, the Chief Administrative Officer hired Mr. 
Bill Jackson, who is retired from the San Mateo County 
Department of Elections, as a technical elections consultant 
to assist the Department at a maximum cost of $100,000. 
According to Mr. Minasian, to date, Mr. Jackson has been 
paid $84,000 and has submitted invoices for the remaining 
$16,000 (see Comment No. 2). 

Maintenance -Buildings & Improvements ($3,279) 

The Department did not budget any funds in FY 2001-2002 
for the building and improvement maintenance services. 
Mr. Minasian advises that the requested $3,279 is for the 
costs to pay for maintenance of the elevator at 240 Van 
Ness Avenue, a City-owned approximately 5,000 square 
foot space the Department of Elections has been using on a 
temporary basis since October of 2001. The Department is 
not currently paying any lease costs for this space. 

Maintenance - Equipment ($228,393) 

The Department already budgeted the necessary $228,393 
to pay for the Department's Elections Systems and 
Software, Inc. (ES&S) maintenance contract services in FY 
2001-2002. However, Mr. Minasian advises that the 
previously budgeted $228,393 for the ES&S equipment 
maintenance services was instead spent for additional 
Other Current Expenses (see below), resulting in 
insufficient funds to pay the necessary $228,393 for the 
equipment maintenance contract with ES&S. 

Rents & Leases - Bldgs & Structures ($47,157) 

As shown below, the Department has already expended 
$63,811, or $13,811 more than the $50,000 budgeted for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

entire fiscal year for rents and leases. However, the 
Department anticipates incurring a total of $97,157 for 
such expenses, which is $47,157, or 94 percent more than 

budgeted. 





Actual 


Total 






Expenses 


Projected 


Projected 




(thru 


Expenses 


Surplus 


Budget 


2/15/02) 


(thru 6/30/02) 


(Deficit) 


$50,000 


$63,811 


$97,157 


$47,157 



Mr. Minasian advises that these additional rental expenses 
were incurred due to (a) carryforward costs of $6,000 from 
the November and December of 2000 election costs for Pier 
45, (b) carryforward costs of $8,376 from the November and 
December of 2000 elections to rent polling places from the 
San Francisco Unified School District, (c) $6,800 for 
additional training classes at the Community College 
District, (d) a rent increase of $228 per month for seven 
months for the Pier 29 facility, or an additional $1,596 and 
(e) miscellaneous additional polling place rental fees (see 
Comment No. 4). 

Rents & Leases - Equipment ($269,431) 

As shown in Attachment II, the Department did not include 
specific budgeted funds for equipment rents and leases in 
their FY 2001-2002 budget, although through February 15, 
2002, the Department reported expending $114,831 for 
equipment rentals, of which an estimated $33,438 was a 
result of the December of 2001 City Attorney runoff 
election, as itemized below. As also itemized below, the 
Department anticipated expending an additional $154,600 
for equipment rents and leases as a result of the March 5, 
2002 election, including $115,000 for vehicle rentals for the 
March, 2002 election, as follows: 





December 2001 


March, 2002 




Run- 


off Election 


Election 


Vehicle Rentals 


$6,740 


$115,000 


Lighting 




4,875 


2,200 


Restrooms 




11,548 


10,400 


Tents 




10,275 


10,000 


Computers 







9,000 


Eagles 







8.000 


Total 




$33,438 


$154,600 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 





BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Together, the already expended $114,831 and the 
previously projected $154,600 results in the requested total 
of $269,431 by the Department (see Comment No. 5). 

Other Current Expenses ($861,159) 

As noted above, the Department advises that previously 
budgeted costs, such as $228,393 for the ES&S Equipment 
Maintenance services contract were instead spent for 
additional Other Current Expenses that were incurred this 
fiscal year, resulting in insufficient funds to pay the 
necessary $228,393 for the equipment maintenance 
contract with ES&S. As a result, the Department has 
requested such additional funds as part of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation. In addition however, the 
Department reports that there is a further shortfall in 
Other Current Expenses, although the actual shortfall is 
larger than the amount being requested, since as noted 
above, some of the costs were allocated to other subobjects, 
such as Equipment Maintenance. For example, the 
Department reports that $1,540,156 of additional Other 
Current Expenses were needed due to (a) overexpenditures 
of $135,879 from the November of 2001 election due to a 2- 
card ballot, instead of the budgeted 1-card ballot; (b) 
$415,277 ($59,717 for mailing services, $59,899 for printing 
of voter information pamphlet, $147,723 for ballots, 
$134,280 for postage and $13,658 for advertising) of 
expenditures incurred from the December of 2001 City 
Attorney run-off election, which was not budgeted; (c) 
$69,000 of additional ballot storage expenses; (d) $20,000 of 
additional travel, training and other office expenses for the 
new Elections Commission; (e) overexpenditures of 
$900,000 from the March 5, 2002 election due to the 
printing of 375 various forms of the ballots, which cost 
$1,800,000, rather than the budgeted $900,000 (see 
Comment No. 6). 

Judgements - Legal Fees ($11,652) 

Mr. Minasian reports that the Department has incurred 
legal expenses of $11,652 for services provided by Ms. Kay 
Lucas, a private attorney, who was working with Retired 
Judge Herbert Donaldson, who was hired by Mr. Bill Lee, 
the City's Administrative Officer, to investigate a 
Department of Election employee's allegations regarding 
payroll reports and the misuse of City funds. The results of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



this investigation by Ms. Lucas and Judge Donaldson found 
that there was no basis for such allegations. 

Taxes, Licenses and Permits ($1,347) 

The Department is requesting a total of $1,347 including 
(a) $230 for permits for street fair booths used to recruit 
poll workers, (b) $500 annual fee to the U.S. Postal Service 
to maintain a Business Reply Mail account, (c) $580 fee to 
the Department of Parking and Traffic for street closures 
on election day, and (d) $37 fee to the Police Department for 
a "sound" permit to have outdoor amplified music during a 
poll worker recruitment event (see Comment No. 7). 

Materials and Supplies ($52,433) 

The Department previously advised that through February 
8, 2002, the Department expended $529,709 for Materials 
and Supplies and projected spending an additional 
$685,488 through June 30, 2002, for total expenditures of 
$1,215,197. Some of the projected additional expenditures 
include: the purchase of new tables and chairs ($61,987), 
miscellaneous office supplies ($50,000), envelopes 
($128,000), ballot pens ($22,500), rice bags ($11,750), 
voting booths ($18,000), additional tables ($23,584), 
luggage carts ($28,000), shelving ($45,000), bar code 
readers ($5,550) and cell phones ($7,104) (see Comment 
No. 8). 

Equipment ($374,767) 

The Department advises that these Equipment funds are 
for the second annual loan payment for Fiscal Year 2001- 
2002 to finance the purchase of the ES&S elections system. 
Under the five-year financing plan, which began on April 6, 
2000 and extends through June 1, 2005, at an interest rate 
of 5.18 percent, the Department will ultimately pay a total 
cost of approximately $3.7 million, including total interest 
expenses of approximately $500,000 over the five-year 
financing period. 

Interdepartmental Recoveries ($91,665) 

The Department budgeted the recovery of $91,665 of 
revenues from the Employees Retirement Department and 
the Health Service System in the anticipation that each of 
these departments would require the Department of 
Elections to conduct an election in FY 2002-2003 for their 
Boards. However, Mr. Minasian advises that neither of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

these Department's Boards will be requiring an election in 
FY 2002-2003, such that the Department of Elections will 
not be recovering these funds this fiscal year. 

Comments: 1. In November of 2001, the voters of San Francisco 

approved Proposition E, a Charter Amendment which (a) 
creates an Elections Commission to oversee the 
Department of Elections, (b) charges the Sheriffs 
Department with elections security as well as transporting 
and safeguarding voted ballots for the elections and (c) 
prohibits the use of City employees, other than Department 
of Elections employees, from staffing elections, unless this 
prohibition is specifically waived by the Elections 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 

2. In response to the Budget Analyst's inquiries regarding 
why the DOE retained three consultants at a cost of 
$120,000 to serve as public relations and communications 
specialists, Ms. Tammy Haygood, the former Director of 
Elections forwarded Attachment II, a March 11, 2002 
memorandum which was provided to Supervisor Daly. As 
noted in Attachment II, Ms. Haygood states that "It has 
become very obvious that the Department of Elections 
needs to improve and broaden the effectiveness, clarity, 
form and channels of its communications at all levels 
including to the general public, voters, City staff, media 
and the Board of Supervisors. Apart from my own 
perspective, this need was recently expressed to me by the 
members of the Rules Committee.... I believe that I am not 
only justified in hiring consultants to address these critical 
needs, but that I would be negligent if I were not to devote 
resources to this area right now." The communications and 
public relations contractual activities included production 
of a series of press releases and public service 
announcements, media information kits, media briefings 
and interviews and design of the DOE's website. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the funds to pay for these 
three public relations services agreements totaling 
$120,000 and the one agreement for technical elections 
consulting services for $100,000 were not included in the 
Department's budget, nor previously specifically authorized 
for funding by the Board of Supervisors. The Budget 
Analyst questions the justification for these four 
professional services contacts and considers approval of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

entire $220,000 requested to fund these four contracts to be 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. The Budget 
Analyst previously recommended that $50,000 that is 
included in the requested supplemental appropriation for 
"miscellaneous" professional fees, that contains no 
supporting details, also be deleted from the subject request 
(See Comment No. 14). 

3. A review of the Department's original budget and current 
budget reflects many changes and transfers of funds from 
one object or account to another. The Budget Analyst also 
notes that a review of the expenditures incurred by the 
Department indicate that the Department is incurring 
expenditures in various objects or accounts, although the 
funds for such expenditures are actually budgeted in other 
accounts. For example, the Department charged to their 
Professional and Specialized Services account (a) $87,073 to 
pay a temporary agency for Temporary employees, (b) 
$6,974 of van rental expenses and (c) $39,824 for the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to pick up ballots after 
the November and December of 2001 election. As a result, 
although such transfers are authorized by the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance, it is extremely difficult to 
accurately determine how much the Department is actually 
expending in its various expense accounts since they 
consistently transferred monies from one account to 
another, subsequent to the Board of Supervisors having 
approved this budget. 

4. For this subject request, the Department has double- 
budgeted $4,669 for the property rent for Pier 29. The 
Department also included $10,000 of miscellaneous 
unidentified property rents in their projections, that are not 
justified. Therefore, the Budget Analyst previously 
recommended reducing the requested $47,157 for Rents & 
Leases by $14,669 ($4,669 plus $10,000) to $32,488 (See 
Comment No. 14). 

5. The proposed supplemental appropriation includes an 
estimated $115,000 to rent vehicles for the March 5, 2002 
election. Given this considerable expense, the Budget 
Analyst questioned the Department regarding the need to 
spend a projected $115,000 to rent various vehicles just for 
the March 5, 2002 election. In response, Mr. Henny Lee of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the Department of Administrative Services advised the 
Budget Analyst that the Department actually expended 
approximately $185,000, or an estimated $70,000 more 
than is being requested in the subject supplemental 
appropriation, to rent various vehicles for the March 5, 
2002 election (See attachment III which identifies the 
vehicles rented). 

Such vehicle rentals included $92,000 to rent 101 vans for 
an average period of two weeks per vehicle, or an average of 
$911 per van, for the Field Election Deputies (FEDs) to 
provide access to the various polling locations throughout 
the City. As noted above, the FED jobs were previously 
performed by other City department staff using their own 
vehicles. In addition, Mr. Lee advises that the Department 
incurred the remaining approximately $93,000 vehicle 
rental expenses to lease a total of 84 various trucks, vans, 
cars and other vehicles for other permanent and temporary 
staff to conduct voter outreach, provide election support, 
transport various ballots between locations, etc. The 
Budget Analyst questions (a) the actual need to rent 185 
(101 plus 84), vehicles at a total cost of $185,000 for the 
March 5, 2002 election, (b) the extremely high cost of 
renting these vehicles and (c) why the vans were rented for 
an average period of two weeks each, when the FEDs only 
required these vehicles on election day. The Budget Analyst 
notes that the Controller's Office, in preparing the cost 
estimates included in the Voter's Information Pamphlet for 
Proposition E, identified a cost of approximately $800 (16 
vehicles at $50 per vehicle) for the Department of Elections 
to rent vehicles for the hired Field Election Deputies. The 
Controller's estimate of $800 is $184,200, or 99 percent less 
than the $185,000 now projected to be expended by the 
Department of Elections for such vehicles. 

The Budget Analyst would not have recommended approval 
of all the requested expenditures for vehicle rentals, if the 
subject request were submitted prior to the March 5, 2002 
election. However, given that these expenditures have 
already been incurred by the Department, the Budget 
Analyst considers approval of such extraordinary vehicle 
rental costs to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGEJ^ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



6. Regarding Other Current Expenses, the Budget Analyst 
questions spending an additional $69,000 for ballot storage 
expenses for the last six months of the fiscal year at an 
average cost of $11,500 per month. Mr. Minasian advises 
that these costs are high because the Department is 
currently using the City's secm-e file vendor to store the 
November, December and March ballots. In addition, the 
Department is using Pier 29, 240 Van Ness, and City Hall 
for various operations and storage. Ms. Haygood advises 
that many of the Department's problems result from the 
lack of consolidated space and reports that the Department 
is currently working with the Division of Real Estate to 
locate one consolidated site for the Department of Elections 
operations and storage needs. 

The Budget Analyst also questioned the inclusion of 
$20,000 of additional travel, training and other office 
expenses for the new Elections Commission, for which no 
details whatsoever were provided. The Budget Analyst 
previously recommended that such expenses, for which no 
detailed support was provided, be reduced. 

Furthermore, as part of this supplemental appropriation, 
the DOE is requesting an additional $900,000 ($900,000 
initially budgeted, projected costs were $1,800,000) which 
resulted from the March 5, 2002 election due to the 
printing of 375 various forms of the ballots. Mr. Minasian 
now advises that the actual costs for the March 5, 2002 
election ballot printing was $1,920,000, because the 
printing vendor did not include sales tax and a $34,000 
energy surcharge in the earlier quote. 

7. The Budget Analyst questioned the $1,347 in Taxes, 
Licenses and Permit expenses that are included in the 
proposed supplemental, since they appear to be regular, 
ongoing expenses of the Department that would typically 
have been included in the Department's annual budget 
request. Therefore, the Budget Analyst considers approval 
of these expenses to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

8. In response to inquiries from the Budget Analyst 
regarding the cell phones purchased by the Department for 
$7,104, Mr. Lee advises that for the November and 
December of 2001 elections, the Department received 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



approximately 500 free cell phones from Nokia and AT&T, 
for which the DOE paid the activation and use charges. Mr. 
Lee advises that AT&T had previously offered free 
activation and use of the free cell phones by the DOE, but 
after many of the cell phones were not returned to AT&T, 
the company began charging the DOE for activation and 
use of the phones. Mr. Lee advises that, after the December 
of 2001 election, he obtained an additional 200 cell phones 
for the DOE that were being discarded by the Police 
Department. Therefore, the DOE already had 
approximately 700 cell phones, when they decided to 
purchase an additional 150 cell phones at a cost cf $7,104, 
for a total of 850 cell phones. Mr. Lee advises that these cell 
phones were given to each of the 650 Inspectors assigned to 
each polling place, the 102 Field Election Deputies and 
various other DOE staff to use during the March 5, 2002 
election. Mr. Lee reports that the activation and use 
charges for these cell phones is estimated to be 
approximately $50,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

In response to the Budget Analyst's inquiry regarding why 
the Department needed additional tables and chairs, Ms. 
Haygood advised that the Department required that ten 
additional precincts be opened for the March 5, 2002 
election and that all of the precincts needed additional 
surface space due to the ballot volume. However, the 
Budget Analyst notes that the Department is requesting 
$85,571 ($61,987 plus $23,584) for such tables and chairs. 
In response to inquiries from the Budget Analyst regarding 
why numerous other Materials and Supplies expenses, such 
as miscellaneous office supplies ($50,000), envelopes 
($128,000), ballot pens ($22,500), rice bags ($11,750), 
voting booths ($18,000), and luggage carts ($28,000) were 
also incurred without first obtaining funding authorization 
by the Board of Supervisors since these expenditures were 
in excess of the Department's budget, Ms. Haygood advises 
that such expenses were required due to the complexity of 
the March 5, 2002 election. The Budget Analyst considers 
approval of the requested $52,433 for Materials and 
Supplies to be a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

9. As noted in all of the expense categories discussed above, 
the Department is requesting that the Board of Supervisors 
approve most of the requested supplemental appropriation 
on a retroactive basis because such requested funds have 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

already been incurred. The Budget Analyst questions why 
the Department did not submit the requested supplemental 
appropriation immediately after the December of 2001 City 
Attorney run-off election was held, when the Department 
knew the extent of the cost overruns of the November of 
2001 election, the December of 2001 City Attorney run-off 
election expenses that had not been included in the budget, 
the potential costs of Proposition E which had been 
approved in November of 2001, and the likely increased 
costs of the March 5, 2002 election. At that time, there 
could have been a meaningful discussion regarding the 
need for technical consultant services and public relations 
contractors, the need to rent vehicles at a cost of up to 
$185,000 for the March 5, 2002 election, additional 
materials and supplies, etc. In the professional judgement 
of the Budget Analyst, the Department should have 
obtained prior approval from the Board of Supervisors 
before incurring such expenses since such expenses were in 
excess of the Department's budget. 

Furthermore, the Budget Analyst concludes that there have 
been little, if any budgetary controls or efficiency measures 
undertaken by the Department, coupled with a total 
disregard by the management of the Department for the 
approved appropriations established in the FY 2001-2002 
budget. 

10. The Budget Analyst notes that the Department's FY 
2001-2002 budget also included an additional $62,087 of 
revenues from (1) the elimination of discounted fees for 
early submission of ballot arguments and (2) a ten percent 
increase in the ballot argument fees beginning with the 
March of 2002 election. However, to date, such legislation 
has not been approved by the Board of Supervisors. As a 
result, the Department of Elections is continuing the 
unauthorized practice of offering discounts for ballot 
arguments, which subsidizes the costs of such paid 
arguments in the Voter Information Pamphlets, and will 
result in an estimated revenue shortfall of $62,087 for the 
Department this fiscal year. 

11. According to Mr. Minasian, in response to the direction 
of the Elections Commission, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation does not include any funds for recanvassing 
of the 2000 elections. It should be noted that the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Department had previously estimated that it would cost 
approximately $870,000 to conduct a full recanvassing of 
both the November and December of 2000 elections. Ms. 
Gloria Young, the Clerk of the Board, advises that the 
Board of Supervisors, in consultation with the Elections 
Commission, approved a motion (File 02-0087), directing 
the Clerk of the Board to work with the Secretary of State 
to identify a scope of work for recanvassing the November 
and December of 2000 elections and to prepare a Request 
for Proposal (RFP) for a third party to perform such a 
recanvass. According to Ms. Young, the RFP has been 
issued and the bids are due by May 3, 2002. Ms. Young 
advises that she will request further direction from the 
Board of Supervisors based on the results of the bids that 
are submitted. 

12. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's 
Office, the Board of Supervisors is obligated to pay the 
salary expenditures that have been incurred for permanent 
or temporary employees who were properly authorized to 
work, and in fact did work for the DOE. Regarding the 
remaining non-salary expenditures, Mr. Lakey advises that 
the City Attorney's Office would have to review individual 
contracts and agreements that were entered into by the 
DOE to determine whether the City could withhold funds 
from such vendors and contractors, if the Board of 
Supervisors did not want to approve such funds. However, 
Mr. Lakey notes that in many of these cases, the DOE has 
already received and used the materials that may be in 
question (e.g., tables and chairs, cell phones, etc.), and the 
ability of the DOE to return such materials to vendors may 
be questionable. 

13. Mr. Ed Harrington of the Controller's Office sent a 
memorandum to Ms. Haygood on March 26, 2002, which is 
included as Attachment IV. In this memorandum, Mr. 
Harrington cites the City Charter and typical contract 
provisions and notes that "The Department of Elections 
routinely makes contractual agreements and purchases 
goods and services without (the required) Controller 
certification. After the goods or services have been received, 
you then provide my office with an invoice to pay. This 
process puts you and your vendors at risk of non-payment." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

14. The Controller's Office has now completed their review 
of all of the expenditures of the Elections Department to 
determine how much has been expended to date, to review 
and verify all of the invoices submitted, and to project 
expenditures for the balance of FY 2001-2002 in order to 
realistically determine the amount of additional funds that 
are required for the Department of Elections. Mr. 
Harrington advises that he will advise the Finance 
Committee at the May 8, 2002 Committee Meeting 
regarding the results of his review. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance to provide for retroactivity. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



COSTS OF DECEMBER, 2001, RUNOFF ELECTION 



Attachment 



DESCRIPTION 



AMOUNT- 



POLL WORKER FEES AND POLLING PLACE RENTS 



410,661 



DPT ENFORCEMENT SVCS ON DEC.1 1 , 2001 (MEMORY PACK PICKUP) 



19,889 



TRAINER/INSPECTOR FOR THE DEC.1 1,2001 ELECTION 



5,850 



TEMP AGENCY WORKERS 



MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES 



DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 



VEHICLE RENTAL 



26,331 
28,631 



5,226 



6,740 



LIGHT TOWER RENTAL 



4,875 



TENT RENTAL 



10,275 



RESTROOM RENTAL 



MAILING SERVICES 



11,548 



59,717 



VIP PRINTING 



59,899 



DECEMBER BALLOTS 



147,723 



POSTAGE FOR VIP AND BALLOTS 



134,280 



ADVERTISING 



13,658 



MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 



171,219 



IS-CENTRAL SHOPS-AUTO MAINT 



IS-CENTRAL SHOPS-FUEL STOCK 



1,125 



1,017 



GF-MAIL SERVICES 



2,312 



IS-REPRODUCTION 



IS-TIS-ISD SERVICES 



3,292 



42,300 



MISCELLANEOUS NOT DETAILED 



50,000 



SUBTOTAL 



1,216,569 



TEMPORARY SALARIES/OVERTIME (ONE-THIRD OF ACTUAL THROUGH DEC) 
TOTAL 



731,265 
1,947,834 



2/19/02 



30 




Attachment II 

Department of Elections [£[ SSf' )-) Tammy S Haygood 

City and County of San Francisco vr^S^&fiMals?) Director 



March 1 1 , 2002 
To : Supervisor Chris Daly 



From : i ammy Haygood 

Director of Elections 

Subject: Information regarding consultants hired for communications, 

outreach, and voter education 



This is in response to your inquiry regarding communications specialists hired by the 
Department of Elections since the November election. The following is the information 
you have requested: 

■ Contractual commitments. Ironically, the article in the San Francisco Chronicle 
regarding my hiring of "communications specialists" is an example of poor 
communications. The Chronicle stated: "Since November, Haygood has hired four 
communications specialists from public relations firms, including Bill Strawn, former 
deputy press secretary for then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, to help her answer 
questions from voters, candidates and the media." In fact, I have not actually hired 
two of the four consultants whom I introduced to the Chronicle reporter who wrote 
the article; they are working on a pro bono basis. I have requested their advice on a 
variety of communications, voter education, and outreach issues, and it has been 
very valuable. I have been soliciting such advice from many individuals throughout 
the public and private sectors at no cost to the City. 

The two consultants with whom I do have contractual commitments are working on 
an as-needed basis through March 31, 2002. Each is limited to a maximum of 
S50.000, although I am hoping to keep actual charges below that amount. The 
scope of services they are providing is described in the two attachments to this 
memo. In addition, I employed one communications consultant prior to the 
November election at a cost of $20,000. 

» Funding. The FY 01-02 original budget for the Department of Elections was based 
on a variety of estimated costs for professional and other services, totaling 
53.9 million for two elections. This amount included an estimate of S50.000 for voter 
outreach services. Of the S3. 9 million, approximately 52.3 million has been 
expended or committed at this time for the November and December elections. As 
would be expected for a department that operates under such major uncertainties, 
some costs have exceeded last spring's estimates for the budget, and others are 



u 



1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place - Room 48, San Francisco, CA 94102-4634 
Voice (415) 554-4375: Fax 1415) 554-7344: Absenteo^Fax (415) 554-4372: TDD /^il <;^.^o<: 



Attachment ■ 
fage Z or 2 I 



Supervisor Chris Daly 
December 28, 2001 
Page 2 



below budget. My staff and I are preparing a detailed line-item analysis of our 
current and projected expenditures, which we will need to support the request for 
supplemental appropriation to be submitted in the next few weeks; however, 
I believe that the consulting services described above are both within my budgetary 
authority and defensible. 

Question regarding "Deputy Director" position. You have asked about a 
position that was added to the Department of Elections FY 00-01 budget by the 
Board of Supervisors. My understanding is that this position was a class 1376 
Special Assistant XVII, and that this position was not included in either the 
reorganization plan or the FY 01-02 budget request submitted by the department to 
the Board of Supervisors last spring. 

I am further informed that the three "Deputy Director" positions in the FY 01-02 
budget were in substitution for four "Division Manager" positions that existed in the 
FY 00-01 budget. These Deputy Director positions have not yet been classified by 
the Department of Human Resources; hence; their specific responsibilities have not 
been defined. Of these three positions, only one is currently filled, as an operations 
manager; this employee is not able to support the department's communications 
needs. The funding for one of the other two positions has been diverted to pay for 
the continued employment of the 1376 Special Assistant XVII referred to above, to 
whom I have not assigned communications responsibilities. The third Deputy 
Director position is vacant at this time. 

■ Additional comments. It has become very obvious that the Department of 
Elections needs to improve and broaden the effectiveness, clarity, form, and 
channels of its communications at all levels including to the general public, voters, 
City staff, media, and the Board of Supervisors. Apart from my own perspective, this 
need was recently expressed to me by the members of the Rules Committee. The 
department unfortunately no longer has the luxury of utilizing such an outstanding 
spokesperson as Chris Hayashi was last year, despite the fact that our needs for 
communications are as great as they were before, if not greater. 

I believe that I am not only justified in hiring consultants to address these critical 
needs, but that I would be negligent if I were not to devote resources to this area 
right now. The department's communications efforts will result over time in improved 
understanding by media, elected officials, and the public of both the election process 
and the department's operations. Such improved understanding is an essential 
ingredient to help break the pattern of reactively explaining the department's 
activities, a pattern that has been diverting far too many management resources. 

Please let me know if you would like any further information on this matter. 

c: Ed Harrington, Bill Lee 

32 



Attachment III 
Page 1 ot 4 




33" 



Attachment X I 
Page 2 of 4 






M 



■' ? :; : 



i 



i i «, , 



4 -! ■ 



- " "I -I - -! -I 



IF 



J J J J J 



iiliillii 



Mi 



a 



Hi 



MS! 






3 3 



Uffl 



111? 

His 



3 U= 






JJ 



WW 



: i : i i : i vi : i I 









ill 



it 



m 



fl"r 



1913 



in 






ffl 



■ 









: l : i : 1 -1 



B£ 






1"i 



; ' ; i 5 i'i 



ffl 



J. , 



» 'I *l 'I * 






:!:! 



Attachment III 
Page 3 ot 4 



• 




1 








s | j = J i J J i i J r J . , - J - J ; ; j J : J J ; J r , j ; j J | j 


iWWjlin ill If if rf f |if 

- 1 - 


1 




ililil^iiiniiiii|ii!iiii!illiliiii 


mimnn iiiiiiiiirn 


lj 1 ij lj ij 1| 1; |j 1 1| 1 |j | |j || |j 1 1| |! fl 1 1| fj 1 |j |j ij i ij ij 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 


ill n l| n, I HI l liijlliiiiiiii 


3=3= • a 3 3 a a :| a : : a :l a 3 jj a : a a a a a a a a a : : : : : a : 


^Pniin a::::::::::: 


g s % % % s! gj s 1 g' si si s g s sj s 1 s si s si s s s! si s 1 si si si g S g s gj g S g si 


jjjSJJMhn |ljliiilm 


====== jjjfflULLIjffl ^'"HHi 


f«|».«- J|J = = = = = = E 


i MM^^iP i MWH i ffll^1r sn ^i 


«flj-!i-!i ttnijl 


lM=l^i=iVl=!Mi=l^=r^=i:M-l=l=IM=- = ^-l= 


SSflj*S3*« iliijUSHij 




. .1 1 . . .1 II 


M 1 1 I 1 


3 j 3 ri r ' ° ! ?; °''° l °'^'' °' ^ °< r! ri ?; ? ?l ?: ?i °' ^ a -^3 s 3 2 i*p 


g ||iii§ llli iiillliiiiii 


llliiliiillllilliliiiillliiilHlli 


yliSlililf illlSlllllli 


|:3!|||.MIl|ill]liilllilj||l{||||||||{ 


JilJlllllll lllllll 


i^^^^JijnJ^MJJiJ^ti^iliHJlii 


JJ. J J, J,, J. Jjl|]1jJJl|J. 


:] q s| q a q sj s; q q q :: q q q :| :; z :; :j :! q :; :; :; q :; q q q q q q q q q - 


I ill HI HilllHHH 


d s| d d q 1 s! :! d si :! d :| d :| ;' q : :| si :l :: :; :! :! d d :! :: :! :| ;! :! d :! :! :i : 
*i *i *l *l *\ *<, * ] *• » *\ «i «i 3 *! »i *| sj »i «i »| -i 'i *| =i »i *\ '•'• ~'< *\ *\ »i «| '! *, •'• ! l « 


1: ij i! li =; i: i; i; =; i § mm.UUUi 


:; =| - -J - sj Sj SJ JJ "j :! 3| 1] 5j q l| :j sj "| "j 3 ':• a: :; »| jj :: :: lj ;j 5! I| q i| lj lj : 


•: 'I 1 I -l -1 | T\- Z -| -1 -| -| -1 -| 'i -| -| -| -i -| 


J J. J. |J 1 | 1 | iJlJJJJI IJJJJJJJ.JJJJ 

im nmTm illilTlr ll TnilTlllT 


| jddddddsjJd^-jJ 



35 



J J J J, 

1111= 

HIT 



II 3 2 3 I 
'I "1 1 1 ' 



111 



Mil 



H-- 



IJJJfl" 

mil* 









Hi 



I 'i -. 1 1 • 



l9: S33a: 

n '11 = 5 = -; 



36 



'^Tk : 



Attachment IV 




CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



OTTTCE Qt THE CONTROL!, 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: Tammy Hay good. Director of Elections 

FROM: Ed Harrinet 

DATE: March 26,2002 

SUBJECT: City Contracting Rules 




I believe there may be some confusion on your part when you say the Department of Elections 
typically follows the City's rules when purchasing goods and services. This is not accurate. The 
City's rules require that the Controller certify the availability of funds before a contract or 
purchase order is complete and before any obligation exists for the City. The Department of . 
Elections routinely makes contractual agreements and purchases goods and services without any 
Controller certification. After the goods or services have been received, you then provide my 
office with an invoice to pay. This process puts you and your vendors at risk of non-payment. 

The City Charter says: 

No officer or employee shall bind the City and County to expend money unless 
there is a written contract or other instrument and unless the Controller shall 
certify that sufficient unencumbered balances are available in the proper fund to 
meet the payments under such contract or other obligation as these become due. 

Typical contracts signed by you this year include the wording: 

This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the City's charter and the 
budget decisions of its Mayor and Board of Supervisors. No funds will be 
available hereunder until prior written authorization certified by the City's 
Controller. The Controller cannot authorize payments unless funds have been 
certified as available in the budget or in a supplemental appropriation. This 
Agreement shall automatically terminate, without liability to the City, if funds 
are not properly appropriated by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors or 
certified by the Controller. 



37 



Tammy Haygood 

City procurement processes Attachment IV 

March 26, 2002 Page 2 of 2 

Paae 2 



The Elections Department also is misusing the City's "blanket purchase order" process. A 
blanket PO is designed to let a vendor know that a City department or multiple City departments 
plan to purchase goods or services from that vendor. The City issues a blanket PO so we can 
track the total spending against it — often across departmental lines. It is not a purchase order 
committing the City to spend any money. It is not a certification by the Controller that funds 
exist to pay for any goods or services. Typically, this is the only item the Department of 
Elections processes through our accounting system before we see an invoice. Blanket PO's have 
the following statement on their face: 

This is not an order for goods or services.... A separate contract purchase order 
must be recorded against this document to encumber funds, constituting the 
Controller's certification and approval of funds... 



cc: Clerk, Board of Supervisors 
Members. Board of Supervisors 
Ted Lakey, City Attorney 
Judith Blackwell, Purchaser 



38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 02-0664 

Note: The subject request for release of $364,444 for LAFCO was 
submitted on April 24, 2002, and then was amended on May 1, 
2002 to reduce the request to $125,000. 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission 
(LAFCO) 

Hearing to request the release of reserved funds for 
LAFCO in the amount of $125,000. 

$125,000 

General Fund 

On December 5, 2000, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated $754,250 from the General Fund Reserve 
for LAFCO, and placed $604,250 of these funds on 
reserve, pending submission of a more detailed budget. 
Subsequently, for all of FY 2000-2001, LAFCO 
expended a total of $11,522. The remaining $742,728 
($754,250 originally appropriated less $11,522 
expended in FY 2000-2001) was carried forward to FY 
2001-2002, including $604,250 of funds that were 
placed on reserve. In October of 2001, $239,806 of the 
$604,250 was released from reserve by the Finance 
Committee for LAFCO to pay legal and additional 
operating expenses, leaving a balance of $364,444 
remaining on reserve. 

On April 24, 2002, LAFCO approved a motion for the 
Executive Officer of LAFCO, Ms. Young, to request a 
release of the remaining $364,444 on reserve from the 
Finance Committee. Ms. Young advises that only 
$125,000 is needed to fund the current fiscal year 
expenditures for LAFCO and the remaining $239,444 
will not be needed until FY 2002-2003. Therefore, as 
noted above, Ms. Young initially requested the 
remaining total balance of $364,444 be released from 
reserve, but has now amended that request, to 
$125,000. 

Ms. Young, advises that the requested $125,000 is 
needed for (a) additional legal expenses for private 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

counsel ($25,000) and (b) to enter into contracts with 
private firms to provide energy consulting services 
($100,000). 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Young, LAFCO is currently 

negotiating with three firms: (1) R.W. Beck, (2) Flynn 
and Associates, and (3) Henwood Energy Services, Inc. 
to provide energy consulting services, at a cost not to 
exceed $100,000. Ms. Young advises that under the 
proposed arrangement, R.W. Beck would act as the 
lead consultant, and Flynn and Associates and 
Henwood Energy Services, Inc. would provide specific 
technical support. Ms. Young further advises that the 
three major issues to be addressed by the energy 
consultants are: (1) high energy prices, (2) energy 
reliability issues, such as shortages and outages and 
(3) local vs. State-wide control of energy production. 
According to Ms. Young, the contract is currently being 
finalized, with the work expected to begin by mid-May 
of 2002, a draft report to be completed by June 17, 
2002 and the final report issued by July 10, 2002. 

2. LAFCO currently contracts with three private firms 
for legal counsel: (1) Nancy L. Miller, (2) Donald H. 
Maynor and (3) Fred Yanney of Fulbright & Jaworski, 
LLP. LAFCO budgeted a total of $100,000 for legal 
counsel in FY 2001-2002. Through March 22, 2002, 
LAFCO expended $85,551 for such legal expenses, 
leaving a remaining balance of $14,449 for the fiscal 
year. Ms. Young advises that LAFCO will likely incur 
estimated legal expenses of approximately $40,000 
during the last three months of the fiscal year, and has 
therefore requested an additional $25,000 of funds be 
released from reserve to pay for such legal counsel. 

3. The Budget Analyst believes that the subject 
$125,000 request is reasonable. 

4. Mr. Tom Owen of the City Attorney's Office has 
advised the Budget Analyst's Office that the Finance 
Committee may consider the subject release of 
reserves, as the Committee would review and consider 
any other City department's release of reserve. 
However, Mr. Owen advised, that given a change in 
State LAFCO law, which became effective on January 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

1, 2001, the Board of Supervisors may not place any- 
future LAFCO requests for funds on reserve. In 
addition, Mr. Owen further advised that, in accordance 
with current State law (Government Code Section 
56381), San Francisco's LAFCO has the authority to 
(a) prepare its own budget, (b) transmit its budget for 
payment to the City and County of San Francisco, and 
(c) neither the Mayor nor the Board of Supervisors 
may reduce the budget request submitted by LAFCO. 
Ms. Young advises that LAFCO anticipates 
transmitting a budget request of $458,750 for FY 
2002-2003. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of $125,000 of reserved 
funds. 



BOARD U 77 SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 02-0241 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 17, 
2002. 

Department: Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Item: Hearing to consider the applications from various agencies to 

participate in the City's 2002 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 

Description: Section 16.93-3 of the Administrative Code requires the 

Department of Administrative Services (a) to review all 
applications from charitable organizations and any Mayor's 
Fund which request to participate in the City's Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive, and (b) to recommend to the Board of 
Supervisors applications which qualify to participate in the 
City's Annual Joint Fundraising Drive in accordance with 
criteria set forth in Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. 

The Department of Administrative Services reports that it has 
reviewed the applications from six charitable organizations and 
three Mayor's Funds, for a total of nine applicants, that have 
applied to participate in the City's 2002 Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive in accordance with the criteria delineated in 
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. The Department of 
Administrative Services reports that all six charitable 
organizations and three Mayor's Funds comply with the Section 
16.93-2 criteria and recommends that all nine organizations be 
approved to participate in the City's 2002 Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive. The summary of findings reported by the 
Department of Administrative Services is contained in the 
Attachment to this report. 

Section 16.93-4 of the Administrative Code also requires that 
the Board of Supervisors designate, by resolution, those 
applicants that qualify to participate in the 2002 Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive. The six charitable organizations and three 
Mayor's Funds that have applied and been recommended by the 
Department of Administrative Services to participate in the 
City's 2002 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive are as follows: 

• Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. 

• Community Health Charities 

• Earth Share of California (Environmental Federation of 
California) 

• Local Independent Charities 

• International Service Agencies 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



United Way of the Bay Area 

Mayor's Fund for the Homeless 

San Francisco Youth Fund (formerly known as the 

Mayor's Youth Fund) 

Mayor's Youth Employment for the Summer Fund (for 

which the Private Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc. 

serves as fiscal agent) 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



According to Ms. Jill Lerner of DAS, the nine organizations 
and funds listed above are the same organizations and funds 
which participated in the City's 2001 Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive. 

Approval of this matter is a policy decision for the Board of 
Supervisors. If the Finance Committee decides to designate 
any or all of the nine qualifying charitable organizations to 
participate in the City's 2002 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive, 
including (1) Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc.; (2) Community 
Health Charities; (3) Earth Share of California (Environmental 
Federation of California); (4) Local Independent Charities; (5) 
International Service Agencies; (6) United Way of the Bay 
Area; (7) Mayor's Fund for the Homeless; (8) Mayor's Youth 
Employment for the Summer Fund and (9) San Francisco 
Youth Fund, then a resolution should be prepared in and 
reported out for such designation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



11-02 3S:2G PR CCSF Ri£< M'3T 4 15 5:4 5 5 83 TO 32523^5 1 F . 33 

Attachment 
Page 1 of 4 



SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

2002 Review of Applications 
To Participate in Annua] Fundraising Drive 



SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS 

Our review consisted of an examination of the materials provided in File No. 020241 and 
telephone conversations with representatives from applicant organizations. We were advised by 
Deputy Ciry Attorney Ted Lakey that telephone inquiries were appropriate to clarify information 
supplied by the applicants. This is the same method we have used in past years to prepare this 
report to the Board of Supervisors. 

All nine organizations that applied for participation in the 2001 Joint Fundraising Drive were in 
compliance with the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors as delineated in the 
Administrative Code. 

CR.nT.RTA 

Following is a list of the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors and information as to 
how the applicants met each requirement. New legislation enacted in 1997 includes in the 
annual joint fund-raising drive any Mayor's fund that is created to further social causes. Under 
Administrative Code Section 16.93-2, only subsections (b), (c) and (e) apply to the Mayor's 
funds. All ether agencies must satisfy subsections (a) through (e). 

Criterion A : 3e a federated agency representing ten HO") nr more charitable organizations of 
which 50 percent shall represent organizations located in the counties of 
San Francisco. San Mateo. Santa Clara. Alameda. Contra Costa and Marjp , 

According tc the City Attorney, "located in the counties" may be defined as having offices, 
fundraising or otherwise doing business in those counties. 

1. Bav Are3 Black United Fund. Tnc, 

Bay Area Black United Fund, inc. represents 46 agencies, all of which 
are located in the Bay Area. 

2. Cn~r->unitv Health Charities 

Community Health Charities represents more than 40 health organizations of 
which 50 percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 



44 



1-02 CS:22 fR CCSr RISK M6T 415 554 6155 TO 9252045 1 P. 04^05 

Attachment 
Page 2 of 4 



Summary cf Findings 

2002 Review of Applications 

Pase 2 of 4 



Farm Share of California /'Environmental Federation of California) 

Earth Share of California represents over 100 organizations of which 50 percent 
or more are located in the Bay Area. 

Local Independent Charities CLIO 

Local Independent Charities represents over 170 organizations of which 50 
percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 

International Service Agencies flSA) 

International Service Agencies represents more than 30 charities of which 50 
percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 

United "Wav of the Bav Area 

United Way of the Bay Area represents over 125 organizations, all of which are 
located in the Bay Area. 



Criterion B- The federated agencv or Mayor's fund must certify to the Board of Supervisors 
that the Federal Internal Revenue Service, has determined that contribution'; to all 
of the represented charitable organizations or Mayor's funds are tax deductible. 

Based on cor_sultation in years past with the City Attorney, we have concluded that all the 
applicants complied with this requirement. 



Criterion C: The federated agency must have been in existence with 10 or more 

Qualified cha r ities for at least one vear prior to the date of application 
and provide satisfactory evidence to that e f fcct at the time of filing art 
application wjlh the Board. Mayor's funds shall submit their most recent 
financial statement to the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. 

This criterion was met by all agencies. 



Criterion D : Tnc federated agencv must submit its most recent certified audit at rhe 
rime of filing an application with the Board. 



45 



c== i i -02 CS:CG FS CCSF RISK MbT 415 554 G I 6S TO S252Q4S: F.Q5 

Attachment 
Pas;e 3 of 4 



Summary of Findings 

2002 Review of Applications 

Page 3 of 4 



All agcnc-.es provided these documents, as detailed below: 



Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. provided Audited Financial Statements dated 
December 3 1 , 2000 with an Auditor's Report by Ravinder SL:gh & Associates, dated 
March 30, 2001. 

Community Health Charities of California provided Financial Statements for the year 
ended June 30, 2001 , with an Independent Auditors' Report prepared by Rooncy, Tda, 
Nolt and Ahem, CPAs, dated July 30, 2001. 

Earth Share of California provided Financial Statements for the years ended September 
30, 2001 and 1999 along with the Auditors' Report by Bregante &. Company, LLP, dated 
February 2, 2001. 

International Service Agencies provided Financial Statements for the years ended June 
30, 2001 and 2000 with an Independent Auditor's Report by the Lang Group, Chtd.. 
dated August 14,2001. 

Local Independent Charities provided Financial Statements for the years ended April 30, 
2001 and 2000 with an Independent Auditors' Report by Maze &. Associates 
Accountancy Corporation, dated October 16, 2001. 

United Way of the Bay Area provided combined Financial Statements for the years ended 
June 30, 2001 and 2000 with a Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants by 
Grant Thornton, LLP, dated January 10, 2002. 

The Mayor's Homeless Fund, created by ordinance (Administrative Code Section 
10.117-33), provided a statement of balance as of February 13, 2002. 

The San Francisco Youth Fund is.served by the Every Child Can Learn Foundation as its 
fiscal agent. Financial Statements for the years ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 were 
provided along with an Independent Auditors' Report by Hood <§: Strong, LLP, dated 
September 26, 2001. Also included was a Statement of Operating Activity dated 2/28/02. 

Mayer's Youth Employment for the Summer Fund (YES) is served by the Private 
Industry Council ("PIC") as its fiscal agent. The PIC submitted Audited Financial 
Statements for the two year period ended June 30, 1999 with an Independent Auditor's 
Report by Izabal, Bernaciak & Company dated December S, 2001. 



46 



11-Q2 G=:2G FR CCSF RISK M<ST 4 15 554 SlSS TO 225ZQ-S1 F.35/Q? 

Attachment 
Page 4 ot 4 



Summary of Findings 

2002 Review of Applications 

Pace 4 of 4 



Criterion E: Agencies that wish to participate in the Annual Drive are required lo submit 
applications to the Board of Supervisors that include all information that may 
be relevant to the criteria ii.^ed in the Section. 

As stated earlier in this report, the City Attorney advised that the applications may be considered 
complete although clarification may have been necessary to conduct this review. 

All applicants provided documentation in their letters of application to the Board of Supervisors 
or confirmed by telephone that they are in compliance with the requirements of Section 16.93-2 
which constitutes "certification." 

Therefore, ail applicants were in compliance with Criterion E. 



kl 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 File 01-1178 



Department: 



Police Department 
Taxi Commission 



Item: 



Ordinance amending Sections 2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the 
Police Code to amend the schedules for Motor Vehicles for 
Hire of the one-time permit application filing fees, other 
related fees and annual license fees and transferring 
responsibility for the administration the Motor Vehicles 
for Hire Program from the Police Department's Taxicab 
Detail to the Taxi Commission. 



Description: 



In November of 1998, San Francisco voters approved a 
Charter Amendment that created the Taxi Commission 
(Proposition D) to administer the Motor Vehicles for Hire 
permits, fees and licensing program. Police Code Section 
1076 (a) defines Motor Vehicles for Hire as every type, 
kind and class of privately owned motor-propelled 
passenger-carrying vehicles for hire over which the City 
may exercise jurisdiction, excluding vehicles licensed in 
other jurisdictions, limousines, funeral limousines, buses, 
private ambulances or rail vehicles. 

The proposed ordinance would (a) transfer responsibility 
for the administration the Motor Vehicles for Hire 
Program from the Police Department's Taxicab Detail to 
the Taxi Commission in accordance with Charter Section 
4.133; and (b) amend Sections 2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the 
Police Code to modify the amount of the fees charged 
under the Motor Vehicles for Hire Program. The permit 
application filing fees are currently collected on a one- 
time basis only while other related fees are collected when 
applicable, for example each time a Medallion is lost, by 
the Police Department. The annual license fees are 
collected by the Treasurer/Tax Collector's Office. 

In accordance with Police Code Section 1087, all revenues 
generated from Motor Vehicles for Hire fees are deposited 
in the Taxicab Enforcement Fund and such funds can 
only be used for the capital and operating costs related to 
the Motor Vehicles for Hire permit and license program. 
Such capital costs include vehicles used for auditing and 
enforcement purposes and the operating costs include 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



personnel expenses, materials and supplies. All 
expenditures made from the Taxicab Enforcement Fund 
are subject to appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

As shown in Attachment I, provided by the Taxi 
Commission, Sections 2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the Police Code 
impose 12 permit application filing fees and other related 
fees and eight annual license fees for Motor Vehicles for 
Hire. According to Inspector Farrell Suslow of the Police 
Department's Taxicab Detail, these fees are designed to 
cover th.3 cost of all administrative and investigative work 
of the Police Department's Taxicab Detail and the Taxi 
Commission, including the work for processing permit 
applications, whether or not the permits are ultimately 
granted. Sections 2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the Police Code also 
currently allow for a 50 percent credit against the permit 
application filing fee and annual license fee for each 
taxicab or ramped taxicab (wheelchair accessible) 
operating on compressed natural gas. This 50 percent 
credit will expire on January 1, 2003. Inspector Suslow 
advises all annual license fees are due on June 30 of each 
year except for the license for taxicab drivers, which is 
due on December 31. 

Currently, the permit, license and other fee revenue 
supports all administrative and enforcement functions 
related to Motor Vehicles for Hire. Administrative duties 
include audits to ensure compliance with Motor Vehicles 
for Hire requirements under Article 16 of the Police Code 
and Appendix Six of the Administrative Code, such as 
ensuring that Taxicab drivers are driving their vehicles 
for at least four hours during any 24-hour period for 75 
percent of the business days during the calendar year. 
Such administrative duties are currently performed by 
both the Police Department's Taxicab Detail and the two 
staff at the Taxi Commission, the Executive Director and 
a 1424 Clerk Typist. Police Department uniform 
personnel also perform enforcement duties, such as 
responding to complaints or alleged violation of the Police 
Code by Taxicab drivers. Under the proposed ordinance, 
the Taxi Commission would be responsible for all 
administrative duties and enforcement duties would 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



continue to be performed by Police Department uniform 
personnel under a work-order. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance would amend Sections 
2.26.1 and 2.27.1 of the Police Code to: (1) revise the fees 
as shown in Attachment I; and (2) transfer administrative 
responsibility for the Motor Vehicles For Hire Program 
from the Police Department's Taxicab Detail to the Taxi 
Commission. 

As shown in Attachment I, the Taxi Commission 
estimates that the proposed fee schedule would increase 
revenues by $403,895 or 38.8 percent annually, from 
current revenues of $1,040,355 to $1,444,250 annually, 
assuming the same number of permits and licenses are 
processed. Currently, 10,570 permits and licenses are 
issued or renewed annually. Of the 10,570 permits and 
licenses, 3,646 one-time permits and other fees are issued 
annually and 6,924 licenses are issued annually. Ms. 
Pamela Levin of the Controller's Office reports that as of 
May 2, 2002 the fund balance available for appropriation 
from the Taxicab Enforcement Fund is $80,647. The 
Motor Vehicles for Hire Program has total budgeted 
expenditures of $1,125,000 in FY 2001-2002, including 
expenditures of the Police Department's Taxicab Detail 
and the Taxi Commission. These expenditures are funded 
from current year permit, other related fees and license 
fee revenues and surplus Taxicab Enforcement Fund 
balances from prior years. 

Inspector Suslow reports that the subject fees were last 
modified in April of 1999 (File No. 98-1443). Inspector 
Suslow advises that the proposed fee changes are 
necessary to offset the increased costs of administering 
the Motor Vehicle for Hire Program. 

Attachment II, provided by Ms. Naomi Little, Executive 
Director of the Taxi Commission, describes (a) the Taxi 
Commission and the Police Department's Taxicab Detail 
duties; (b) why the Taxi Commission is requesting the 
proposed fee changes; (c) how the permit and license fee 
revenues are currently expended; and, provides (d) a 
proposed summary FY 2002-2003 budget, which assumes 
that the proposed ordinance is approved. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 1. Inspector Suslow advises that if the proposed ordinance 

is approved and all of the administrative responsibilities 
of the Motor Vehicles for Hire Program are transferred 
from the Police Department's Taxicab Detail to the Taxi 
Commission, the criminal enforcement duties for the 
Motor Vehicles for Hire Program would continue to be the 
responsibility of the Police Department's Taxicab Detail 
and funds would be work-ordered from the Taxi 
Commission to the Police Department's Taxicab Detail for 
enforcement duties. Captain Goldberg, Head of the Police 
Department's Fiscal Division, advises that Police 
Department personnel currently working in the Motor 
Vehicles for Hire Program would either be transferred to 
the new Taxi Commission budget or absorbed within the 
Police Department's budget with no changes in the Police 
Department's General Fund expenditures. Ms. Little 
advises that the Taxi Commission's budget is currently 
part of the Police Department's budget and it is the 
intention of the Taxi Commission to separate its budget 
from the Police Department during FY 2002-2003. 

2. According to Ms. Little, if the proposed ordinance is 
approved, the Motor Vehicles for Hire fees would generate 
sufficient funds to offset all existing costs as well as the 
personnel costs for the six new positions which the Taxi 
Commission is requesting in its FY 2002-2003 budget. 
The Taxi Commission plans to reduce its work-order to 
the Police Department's Taxicab Detail to reflect the 
reduction in administrative support provided by the 
Police Department's Taxicab Detail. However, Ms. Little 
advises that the Police Department's Taxicab Detail 
would continue to provide administrative support during 
FY' 2002-2003 until the Taxi Commission is fully staffed 
and trained to assume all of the administrative 
responsibilities. 

As stated above, Motor Vehicles for Hire fees were last 
modified in April of 1999. The Police Department's 
Taxicab Detail's total FY' 1999-2000 budget was $890,525. 
However, with salary increases in FY 2000-2001. FY" 
2001-2002 and FY 2002-2003, the equivalent expenditure 
after salary increases, would be $983,000 in FY' 2002- 
2003. As shown in Attachment II, the total proposed Taxi 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Commission budget for FY 2002-2003, which assumes 
that the proposed ordinance would be approved, is 
$1,426,000, an increase of approximately $443,000, or 45 
percent over the adjusted FY 1999-2000 budget of 
$983,000. As noted above, fee revenues are being 
increased by 38.8 percent. Ms. Little advises that, in 
addition to the six new requested positions for the Taxi 
Commission to assume the administrative responsibilities 
of the Motor Vehicles for Hire Program, the proposed FY 
2002-2003 budget includes funds to purchase one new 
automobile, materials and supplies, rent and increased 
salary costs. 

3. Ms. Little advises that if the subject proposed 
ordinance increasing permit and licensing fees is not 
approved, the Taxi Commission would eliminate its 
equipment purchases, renegotiate its work-order with the 
Police Department's Taxicab Detail and would reduce its 
request for the six new administrative staff in its FY 
2002-2003 budget request. 

4. In view of the fact that (a) new positions are being 
requested in the forthcoming FY 2002-2003 budget (b) the 
proposed fee increases are based, in part, on supporting 
the costs of the new positions and (c) the Mayor's final 
recommended FY 2002-2003 budget will not be reviewed 
by the Budget Committee and the Budget Analyst until 
June 2002, at which time the Budget Analyst would 
examine the justification of all new positions including 
the workload related to these positions, the portion of this 

. ordinance pertaining to the proposed fee modifications 
should be continued to the Call of the Chair. 

Recommendations: 1. Sever the proposed ordinance in order to continue 

"" consideration of the proposed fee modifications to the Call 

of the Chair, to be again considered at the June, 2002 

budget hearings, in accordance with Comment No. 4 

above. 

2. Approve the portion of the proposed ordinance to 
transfer responsibilities for the administration of the 
Motor Vehicles for Hire Program from the Police 
Department to the Taxi Commission in accordance with 
the Charter. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Proposed Permit Fee Increase 



Attachment I 



Permit/Fee/License 
Type 


Number 
Processed 


Current Fee 
2002 


Current 
Revenue 


Proposed 
Fee 


Proposed 
Revenue 


Variance 
in Fee 


Variance in 
Revenue 


Driver Permit 
Applications (one- 
time) 


1400 


S65 


S91.000 


$65 


$91,000 


$0 


$0 


Driver 
Renewals/Licenses 


5500 


S40 


S220.000 


$40 


$220,000 


$0 


SO 


so 


Permit Holder 
Applications (one- 
time) 


150 


S450 


S67.500 


$550 


$82,500 


$100 


$15,000 


Permit Holder 
Renewals/Licenses* 


1306 


S330 


$430,980 


$625 


$816,250 


$295 


$385,270 


. 


Ramped Taxicab 
Permit Applications 
(one-time) 


20 


S325 


$6,500 


S100 


$2,000 


($225) 


(S4.500) 


Ramped Taxicab 
Renewals/Licenses 


75 


$175 


$13,125 


$100 


$7,500 


(S75) 


(S5.625) 


! 


PCN Applications 
(one-time) 


400 


S200 


S80.000 


$225 


$90,000 


$25 


$10,000 


Color Scheme 
Change Fee** 


150 


S125 


$18,750 


$150 


$22,500 


S25 


$3,750 


Lost Medallions 
Fee*** 


20 


$150 


$3,000 


S150 


$3,000 


$0 


$0 


Metal Medallions Fee 
(one-time) 


1500 


S25 


$37,500 


$25 


S37.500 


$0 


so 


New Color Scheme 
Permit Applications 


1 to 5 Medallions (one 
time) 


5 


S500 


$2,500 


$500 


$2,500 


$0 


so 


6 to 15 Medallions 
(one-time) 





S1.000 


SO 


$1,000 


$0 


SOI so 


16 to 49 Medallions 
(one-time) 





$2,000 


$0 


$2,000 


SO 


SO 


SO 


50 or more 
Medallions (one-time) 





$2,500 


so 


S2.500 


SO 


so 


SO 




Color Scheme 
Renewals/Licenses 














SO 


1 to 5 Medallions 


14 


$500 


$7,000 


$500 


$7,000 


so 


$0 


6 to 15 Medallions 


6 


$1,000 


$6,000 


$1,000 


$6,000' $0 


so 


16 to 49 Medallions 


7 


$2,000 


S14.000 


$2,000 


$14,000 


so 


so 


50 or more 
Medallions 


7 


$2,500 


S17.500 


$2,500 


$17,500 


so 


so 


SO 


Dispatch Service 
Permit Application 
(one-time) 


1 


$2,500 


S2.500 


$2,500 


$2,500 


$c 


so 


Dispatch Service 
Renewals/Licenses 


g 


$2,500 


$22,500 


$2,500 


$22,500 


sc 


so 


[Total 


10,570 




| $1,040,355 




| $1,444,250 




$403,895 



The current fee is $550, however, a $220 "incentive discount" is given for those taxicabs participating 
in the paratransit program. The Board of Supervisors has made the participation mandatory. 
We are asking for the elimination of the "incentive discount" for participating in the paratransit program. 
** A medallion holder can change color schemes as many times as he or she choses and a fee will be charged 
each time the color scheme is changed. 
*"* Everytime, the medallion holder loses a medallion, he or she must pay a fee to replace that medallion. 



53 



0-^22 02 16:02 SFTPX I COMMISSI Or; - 2520-161 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment II 
Fage I of 4 



Taxicab Commission 
Mayor Witlie L. Brown, Jr. 

Naomi M. Little 



May 2, 200: 



Ms. Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analyst Office 
Board cf Supervisors 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Ms. Singleton: 

SUBJECT: Draft Report Regarding Ordinance Amending Schedules for Motor 
Vehicles for Hire 

I prepared responses to some of your questions regarding the uses of the 
additional monies generated by the fee increase. 

1. What does the Taxicab Commission/Taxicab Detail administration and 
investigation entail? 

Taxicab Commission: 

The Taxicab Commission is delegated with the duty of implementing and 
enforcing the rules and regulations that governs the taxicab industry. In addition, the 
Taxicab Commission Department will assume all permitting responsibilities, including 
drivers, pennit holders, ramp taxicabs, PCN applications, color scheme changes, lost 
medallions, metal medallions, color scheme renewals and applications, and dispatch 
services. When a person files an application, the Taxicab Commission Department will 
initiate a background investigation. This entails investigating the validity of the 
application and ensuring that the various qualifications of the applicant are correct. 

Proposition D requires that the Taxicab Commission assume "all powers and 
responsibilities relating to taxicabs and other motor vehicles for hire, other than criminal 
enforcement, now vested with the Police Commission, the Police Department or the 
Chief of Police." San Francisco Charter § 4.133(b). The Taxicab Commission will take 
over all administrative audits such as the Proposition K., Dispatch and Color Scheme 
audits. Tne Taxicab Commission will also have the responsibility for handling customer 
service complaints. 

SFPD Taxicab Detail: 



1540 Market Scree:. Suite 160, Sr.n Froncuco. CA 94102 
(415) 554-3940 Fax (415) 552-6996 
54 



05/22 02 16:Q2 SFTflX I COMMISSI ON ■* 2520461 

Attachment II 



Page 2 of 4 



The Police Department will continue with criminal enforcement. This includes 
street enforcement, local or state law violation complaints, and lost property recovery. 
Street enforcement entails checking taxicabs on the street to determine whether the driver 
is carrying his or her A-cnrd (i.e. driver's permit card), badge and to ensure the taxicab is 
in compliance with the California Vehicle Code, the Municipal Police Code and the 
Taxicab Commission's Rules and Regulations. The Taxicab Detail will provide greater 
police enforcement to help deter out-of town taxicabs and limousines, which unlawfully 
solicit passengers in San Francisco. In addition, special operations, such as stings, will 
uncover refusals to take passengers to specified locations. 

2. Why does the Tnxicab Commission need the increase changes and deletions? 

The increase of the permit holder (i.e. medallion holder) one-time application 
filing fees from $450 tc $550. and the increase of the penr.it holder renewals fee from 
$550/5330 to $625 is a $400,270 increase in revenues. This increase will primanly be 
expended on the Taxicab Commission Office salaries and administration. 

As for the renewal fee, a $220 incentive discount was given for those participating 
m the paratransit program. The Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance fc 95-1039 
making participation in the parairansit program mandatory. Elimination of the incentive 
discount is a major percentage of the S400,270 increase in permit holder renewal fees. 

The Taxicab Commission Office decided to reduce the Ramped Taxicab one-rime 
application filing fees from $325 to $100, and renewal fees from $175 to $100, which is a 
$9,625 decrease in revenues. Ramped Taxicab Permit holders are burden with the high 
costs of operating a ramped taxicab. Some ramped taxicab permit holders are required to 
purchase their own ramped taxicab, which costs anywhere between $32,000 and S40.000. 
In addition, there are higher maintenance costs for a ramped taxicab than for a regular 
taxicab sedan. 

The increase of the one-time PCN Applications (i.e. waiting list application) and 
the increase of the one-time Color Scheme Change fee will help offset the reduction of 
the Ramped Taxicab fees. 

Definitions 

Color Scheme Holder: Any permitec licensed by the City and County of San Francisco 
to operate a taxicab company color scheme. The phrase "Color Scheme Holder," 
Taxicab Company," and Taxi Company," may be used interchangeably [Taxicab 
Commission Rule § 1.3. C] 

Public Convenience & Necessity ("PCN"): This is the burden of proof required by the 
Taxicab Commission to determine whether a permit should be issued for the operation of 
any motor vehicle for hire. [Municipal Police Code § 1079(c)] 

3. How is the current money being used and what are the projected uses? 



55 



C5^'C2.'02 



:i--2D 



SFTAx: COMMIES I ON •> 25204.61 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 4 



Overall, 75% of the budget is allocated for Taxicab Commission and Taxicab 
Detail salaries - approximately $372,000 for tbe Taxicab Commission and $700,000 for 
tbe Taxicab Detail. Once the Taxicab Commission staff is aired, this Department will 
assume all administrative duties. The Taxicab Derail will focus only on criminal 
enforcement. However, it is unlikely that all eight positions in the Taxicab Commission 
Office will be filled by September 2002. Therefore, the Taxicab Detail will provide 
administrative support until the Taxicab Commission is able to fill the majority of its 
positions. 

As the Taxicab Commission Office's staff increases, the Taxicab Detail's staff 
will decrease. However, the projected costs for the two agencies will still be larger than 
current costs due to proactive programs required by the Commission such as cnminal 
enforcement, improving drivers training, community outreach and marketing campaigns. 

The remaining funds will be used to provide the Taxicab Commission Department 
with operating expenses. As a newly created office many of the expenses will be for 
basics such as office rent, service contracts to odier City Departments (i.e. City Attorney 
and City Watch), and funding dispatch studies. Additionally, there are initial costs such 
as furniture, office equipment and a vehicle for staff auditors. 

The following chart shows a quick comparison between this year's actual budget 
and the Taxicab Commission and Taxicab Detail's projected budget for the next fiscal 
year. Types of costs are combined for easy comparison. For example, mandatory fringe 
costs are included in personnel costs. (Attached is the Taxicab Commission 2002-2003 
Budget as entered into BPREP.) 



Current 2001-02 


Projected 2002-03 


Equipment Purchases 





26.000 


Rent/Contractual Services 


127,000 


271,000 


Materials/Supplies/Overhead 


31,000 


57,000 


Commission Personnel Costs 


156,000 


372,000 


Police Personnel Costs 


811,000 


700,000 


TOTAL 


1,125,000 


1,426,000 



4. Is the Taxicab Commission already involved in the administration and 
issuance of taxicab permits? 

The Taxicab Commission Office is in the beginning phase of assuming the 
responsibility for issuing and auditing permits. Die Commission Office is lacking staff to 
fully take over these dunes. Approval of tbe proposed ordinance will pay the salaries of 
die permit clerks and auditors necessary for the office to operate. 



56 



Q502Q2 lb: 32 SFTAX I COMMISSI ON ■» 2520461 

Attachment II 
l-'age 4 of 4 



Currently, the Taxicab Commission Office staff consists of one 1424 Permit Clerk 
and myself, the Executive Director. Eventually, the Taxicab Commission Department 
will need a staff of approximately ten persons to process and audi: the approximately 
8,000 plus permits. The Taxicab Commission is working closely with the Police 
Department in the transition these responsibilities. The SFPD Taxicab Detail will assist 
in training the new staff. 

5. Why did it take so long to enact Proposition D? 

The Taxicab Commission was established in phases. In March 1999, seven 
Taxicab Commissioners were swom-in and holding bi-weekly Taxicab Commission 
Meetings. Immediately, authority to grant permits was transferred from the Police 
Commission to the Taxicab Commission. The Taxicab Commission decided on all 
policy decisions, issuance of permits, and directed the SFPD Taxicab Detail. 

Hiring an Executive Director was the second phase. As the Executive Director, I 
am charged with enacting Proposition D. My primary goal is to reorganize the duties and 
responsibilities related to the San Francisco Taxicab Industry. A budge: reorganization 
plan will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year 2002/2003 The 
Taxicab Commission is proposing that the Taxicab Enforcement Fund, currently housed 
under the Police Department, be transferred to the independent department, the Taxicab 
Commission Office. The appropriate funds will be work ordered to the Police 
Department for criminal enforcement. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is essential for the final phase of enacting 
Proposition D. That is, hiring staff such as a Commission Secretary, Permit Clerks, and 
Auditor/Investigators. Once staff is in place, a full transition of duties from the Police 
Department will take place. 



If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (415) 554-3940. 
Sincerely, 



Naomi Little 
Executive Director 

Cc: Supervisor Gavin Newsom, Cathy Garza 



57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



ItemS- File 01-1716 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Airport 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Police Code by 
amending Article 16, Section 1135(a) to allow taxicab 
drivers to collect a $2.00 pass through fee from taxicab 
passengers when a trip fee is incurred at San Francisco 
International Airport. 

Currently, the Airport charges ground transportation trip 
fees to private ground transportation operators, including 
(a) taxis, (b) door-to-door vans, (c) limousines, (d) courtesy 
shuttle operators, such as hotel and parking lot shuttle 
operators, and (e) charter operators, who provide ground 
transportation services at the Airport. The trip fees paid 
by the ground transportation operators to the Airport are 
used to pay for a share of the costs of Airport capital 
improvements, and operations and maintenance costs 
directly attributable to ground transportation operations. 
For taxis, door-to-door vans, and limousines, the trip fee 
also includes the cost of the Airport Curbside 
Management Program (see Comment 2). The trip fee for 
courtesy shuttle and charter operators is $1.65 per trip. 
The trip fee for limousine operators is $2.75 and the trip 
fee for door-to-door vans and taxis is $3.25. Limousines, 
door-to-door vans, courtesy shuttle operators, and charter 
operators are permitted to pass through the cost of the 
trip fee to their passengers. However, taxis, which are 
regulated by Article 16 of the Police Code, are not 
permitted to pass through the cost of the trip fee to their 
passengers without an amendment of the Police Code. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance would amend Article 
16, Section 1135 (a) of the Police Code to authorize the 
taxicab drivers to pass through $2.00 of the $3.25 Airport 
ground transportation fee to passengers. 

1. As shown in Attachment I, provided by the Airport, the 
Airport ground transportation trip fee was increased for 
all Airport ground transportation operators in calendar 
year 2000. The ground transportation fee for door-to door 
vans was increased by $1.80, from $1.45 per trip to $3.25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

per trip. The ground transportation fee for limousines was 
increased by $1.30, from $1.45 per trip to $2.75 per trip. 
The ground transportation trip fee for courtesy shuttle 
and charter operators was increased by $0.20, from $1.45 
per trip to $1.65 per trip. The ground transportation fee 
for taxis was increased by $0.50, from $2.50 per trip to 
$3.00 per trip. On January 1, 2001, the ground 
transportation trip fee for taxis increased by $0.25, from 
$3.00 to $3.25 per trip. 

2. As shown in Attachment I, between 1999 and 2001, 
the rate of increase in the ground transportation fee for 
limousines, door-to-door vans and taxis, which ranged 
from $0.75 ($0.50 plus $0.25) to $1.80 per trip, was larger 
than the rate of increase of $0.20 per trip for courtesy 
shuttle and charter operators, because limousines, door- 
to-door vans and taxis pay for a portion of the costs of the 
Curbside Management Program. The Curbside 
Management Program was implemented by the Airport in 
1999 to coordinate ground transportation services at all 
Airport terminals. 

3. According to Ms. Sgourakis, the Airport is 
recommending the proposed $2.00 pass-through of the 
$3.25 ground transportation fee charged by taxicab 
drivers to passengers because (a) Airport ground 
transportation operators, other than taxicab drivers, are 
permitted to pass-through such fees to the passengers, (b) 
a survey of 21 of the busiest U.S. airports (including San 
Francisco International Airport), of which 15 charge 
ground transportation trip fees, shows that at 12 of the 15 
airports surveyed, or 80 percent, taxicabs pass through 
100 percent of the ground transportation trip fees to the 
passengers (see Attachment II, provided by the Airport), 
(c) the taxicab drivers, and not the taxi companies, pay 
the $3.25 ground transportation trip fees 1 , and (d) the 
Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 435-01 on May 
21, 2001, which urges the Airport Commission to 
recommend enactment of an ordinance that will allow a 
partial pass-through of the ground transportation trip fee 
by taxicab drivers to passengers. 



1 If the taxicab driver is the taxicab owner, then the taxicab owner pays the S3. 25 ground transportation trip 
fee. 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 8, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



Approval of this ordinance is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors because Resolution 435-01, previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, did not state what 
amount of the ground transportation fee charged to 
taxicab drivers should be passed through to taxicab 
passengers. 




*7 , 

Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakev 



60 



Attachment I 



Attachment I. Ground Transportation Trips Fees at SFO 





1999 


2000* 


2001" 


Taxis 


S2.50 


S3. 00 


S3.25 


Door-to-Door Vans 


SI. 45 


S3. 25 


S3 25 


Limousines 


$1.45 


S2.75 


S2.75 


Courtesy Shuttles 


SI. 45 


SI. 65 


SI. 65 


Charter Buses 


SI. 45 


SI. 65 


SI. 65 



Notes' 



Taxi trip fee effective February 1 , 2000; all other trip fees effective July 1 , 2000. The trip fee 

increase lor taxis, door-to-door vans and limousines was larger than that for courtesy shuttles ond 

charter buses because the.se operators pay for a portion of rhe costs of the Curbsidc Management 

Program. 

Taxi trip fee effective January I, 2001. 



61 



TAXI FEES 

21 Busiest American Airports 

(By # of Passengers) 





CITY' 


TRIP FEE 


PASSENGER PAYS 


DRIVER PAYS 


1. 


Atlanta 


S.50 


-0- 


$.50 


2. 


Chicago 3 


S2.00 


$2.00 


-0- 


3. 


Los Angeles 


$2.50 


$2.50 


-0- 


4. 


DallasTt. Worth 


S3. 60 


$3.60 


-0- 


5. 


San Francisco 


S3.25 


-0- 


S3.25 


6. 


Denver 


S2.50 


$2.50 


-0- 


7. 


Las Vegas 


S1.20 


$1.20 


-0- 


8. 


Minneapolis b 


* 


-0- 


* 


9. 


Phoenix 


$1.00 


$1.00 


-0- 


10. 


Detroit 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


11. 


Houston 11 


$2.75 


$2.75 


-0- 


12. 


Newark 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


13. 


Miami 


$1.00 


$1.00 


-0- 


14. 


New York/JFK 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


15. 


Orlando d 


$3.50 


$.50 


$2.50 


16. 


St. Louis 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


17. 


Seattle 


$1.00 


$1.00 


-0- 


18. 


Boston 


$1.50 


$1.50 


-0- 


19. 


New York/LaGuardia 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


20. 


Philadelphia 


$1.50 


$1.50 


-0- 


21. 


Charlotte c 


$1.00 


$1.00 


-0- 



Notes: a_ In Chicago, driver pays S2 when picking up. Passenger pays SI lo airport and SI from airport. 

b. In Minneapolis, cabs pay S2450 per year for use of the airport. 

c. In Houston and Charlotte, the fee is included in a flat-rate fare. In Houston, passengers also pay SI. 00 late 

night surcharge (Spm - 6am). 

d. Ln Orlando, cab company pays S.50 of fee. 



Sources: 2 1 Busiest U.S. airports obtained from Airports Council International web site, data for year 2000. Fee 
information obtained form airports and major cab companies (updated 8/2001 by SFO Governmental Affairs). 

62 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, May 15, 2002 



12:30 PM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano. 



Supervisor Ammiano appointed himself to serve as a member of the Finance Committee. 

MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 12:33 p.m. 
020764 [Reserved Funds, Department of Elections] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Elections, fiscal year 2001-02 budget, in the 
amount of $203,663, to pay for the rental of vehicles for the March 2002 election. (Controller) 
5/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller: John Bardis. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $203,663 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020144 [Establishing Trial Rates for City Owned Garages and Metered Parking Lots] 

Resolution approving trial rates as proposed permanent parking rates, with adjustments, for the Civic Center 

Garage, the Ellis O'Farrell Garage, the 16th & Hoff Street Garage, the 324-8th Avenue Parking Lot (at 8th and 

Clement), the 330-9th Avenue Parking Lot (at 9th and Clement) and the 42 1-1 8th Avenue Parking Lot (at 18th 

and Geary) and the Performing Arts Garage. (Parking and Traffic Department) 

2/6/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

2/27/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steven Lee, Harking Authority; Ronald Szeto, 

Parking Authority. 

Continued to 3/20/02. 

3/27/02, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. 

Continued to 4/10/02, 

4/10/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Stephen Wally, Jewelry by Stephen; Ronald Szeto, Acting Director, Parking 

Authority; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Billie Bragman, Board of Ellis O'Farrell Garage; Paul Sengan. 

Continued to 4/24/02. 

4/24/02, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. 

Continued to 5/15/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Steven Lee, Parking Authority: Matthew Cohen. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:20 I'M M i 5 0-1 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 15, 2002 



020643 [Lease Purchase Financing for the Acquisition of a Parking Meter Management System] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Resolution approving the lease purchase financing for the acquisition of a parking meter management system 
for the Department of Parking and Traffic; approving the form of a lease purchase financing agreement 
between the Department of Parking and Traffic and a lender, authorizing the selection of a lender, and ratifying 
previous actions taken in connection therewith. 

(Fiscal impact; Companion measure to Files 020494 and 020495.) 

(Supervisor Daly dissenting in Committee) 

4/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Nadia Sesay, Mayor's Office of Public 

Finance. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Daly 



020191 [Supplemental Appropriation, Board of Supervisors] 
Supervisor Daly 

Ordinance releasing Finance Committee reserves in the Planning Department for computer equipment, 
$263,000, and $500,000 for the Transbay Terminal Study, and reappropriating a total of $500,000 from the 
Planning Department to the Board of Supervisors: $263,000 for an environmental review of Board of 
Supervisors legislation, File No. 002108, ordinance amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
(Planning Code) by amending Section 124 to eliminate floor area ratio limits for residential construction in 
certain C-3 Zoning Districts, amending Sections 215 and 216 to increase the maximum density ratio for 
dwelling units and group housing allowed in certain C and M Districts, and making a determination of 
consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(B), and $237,000 for the Transbay Joint 
Powers Authority for fiscal year 2001-02. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/4/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

2/1 1/02, SUBSTITUTED. Supervisor Daly submitted a substitute ordinance bearing new title. 

2/1 1/02, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gerald Green, Director of Planning; Edward 

Harrington, Controller; Supervisor McGoldrick; Lois Scott, Planners' Chapter, Local 21; Jeremy Paul; 

Norman Rolfe, San Francisco Tomorrow; Bruce Balshone; Jon Twichell, Transportation Planning Manager, 

AC Transit; Michael Sweet; Ernestine Weiss; John Bardis; John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; Marie 

Iortay, Program Director for Cal Train Redevelopment Plan; David Hayward, Redevelopment Agency; Gloria 

Young, Clerk of the Board. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance releasing the $500,000 Finance Committee Reserve for the Transbay Terminal Study and 

reappropriating the same from the Planning Department to the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year 2001-02. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 12:29 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 15, 2002 



020145 [Reserved Funds, Planning Department] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved Funds, Planning Department (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget), in the 
amount of $263,000 for computer equipment needed by the Department. (Planning Department) 
2/7/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gerald Green, Director of Planning; Edward 
Harrington, Controller; Supervisor McGoldrick; Lois Scott, Planners' Chapter, Local 21; Jeremy Paul; 
Norman Rolfe, San Francisco Tomorrow; Bruce Balshone; Jon Twichell, Transportation Planning Manager, 
AC Transit; Michael Sweet; Ernestine Weiss; John Bardis; John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; Marie 
Iortay, Program Director for Cal Train Redevelopment Plan; David Hayward, Redevelopment Agency; Gloria 
Young, Clerk of the Board. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $263,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020473 [Reserved Funds, S.F. International Airport] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, S.F. International Airport (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget), in the 
amount of $54,387,447, as partial reimbursements for funds expended on all contracts related to the 
development of data to be used in the preparation of the required EIR/EIS documents for the proposed runway 
project. (Airport Commission) 

3/28/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director; Wade 
Crowfoot, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Peskin; John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; John Bardis; Edward 
Harrington, Controller. 
Continued to 5/29/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



012027 [Appropriation - Airport Commission Airline Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2 ) Revenue] 

Ordinance appropriating $244,757,735 of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2) revenue to fund the cost of the 
principal and interest on bonds issued for certain eligible costs associated with the development of the new 
international terminal complex, and the development and implementation of the precision runway monitoring 
system at the Airport Commission for fiscal year 2001-02, placing $244,757,735 on reserve pending approval 
by the Federal Aviation Administration of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2). (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/3/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director; Wade 

Crowfoot, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Peskin; John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; John Bardis; Edward 

Harrington, Controller. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:29 PM on I'f 04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 15, 2002 



Ordinance appropriating 5224,034,821 of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2) revenue to fund the cost of the 
principal and interest on bonds issued for certain eligible costs associated with the development of the new 
international terminal complex, and the development and implementation of the precision runway monitoring 
system at the Airport Commission for fiscal year 2001-02. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

Continued to 5/29/02. 

CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020490 [Gift - South (Murphy) Windmill in Golden Gate Park] 

Supervisors McGoldrick, Hall, Sandoval, Newsom, Maxwell 

Ordinance authorizing the Recreation and Park Department to negotiate and enter into sole-source contracts 
with Lucas Verbij, Hoogmade/BV, Netherlands, and Mark De Jong, Bloemendal Construction Company, San 
Francisco for restoration of the South (Murphy) Windmill in Golden Gate Park and accepting a gift of funds 
from the Campaign to Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

3/25/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kathryn How, Recreation and Park 

Department; Don Propster, Chair, Campaign to Save Golden Gate Park Windmill; Supervisor McGoldrick. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Daly 



020635 [Lease of Property] 

Resolution authorizing the lease of real property at 945 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California, for the 
Department of Human Services. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact; District 6.) 

4/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. 

Amended on page 1, line 3, by replacing "Human Services" with "Public Library. " 

AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the lease of real property at 945 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California, for the Public 

Library. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact; District 6.) 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; Susan Hildreth, City Librarian; Marc 
McDonald, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 
Continued to 5/22/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:30 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 15, 2002 



020665 [Conveyance of Water Pipeline Easement in Exchange for 2.5 Acres in San Mateo County] 

Resolution approving and authorizing the conveyance of a water pipeline easement in exchange for 
approximately 2.5 acres in San Mateo County; adopting findings that the exchange is exempt from 
Environmental Review and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Eight Priority Policies of City 
Planning Code Section 101.1; and authorizing the Director of Property to execute documents, make certain 
modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. (Real Estate Department) 

(Public Benefit Recipient) 

4/30/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Primed at 12:30 P\l on 3 > U4 



i.a5 
5/0 > 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



May 9, 2002 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 02-0144 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAY 1 4 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
24, 2002. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 
Parking Authority 

Resolution approving parking rates at the following seven 
City-owned parking facilities: the Civic Center Garage, 
the Ellis O'Farrell Garage, the 16 th and Hoff Street 
Garage, the Performing Arts Garage, the 324 8 th Avenue 
Parking Lot (at 8 th and Clement), the 330 9 th Avenue 
Parking Lot (at 9 th and Clement), and the 421 18 th 
Avenue Parking Lot (at 18 th and Geary). 

In accordance with Section 17.14 of the Administrative 
Code, the Parking and Traffic Commission can establish 
parking rates at City-owned parking facilities on a trial 
basis for a period of up to 360 days, without first 
obtaining approval of the Board of Supervisors. The 
Parking and Traffic Commission has oversight 
responsibility of 40 City-owned parking facilities, of which 
19 are parking garages and 21 are metered parking 
facilities. This responsibility includes recommending 
permanent parking rates to be charged at these parking 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



facilities, which are subject to approval, by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The proposed resolution would adopt permanent parking 
rates recommended by the Parking and Traffic 
Commission at the seven City-owned parking facilities 
identified above, generally at the same rates which had 
been implemented by the DPT on a trial basis. A 
comparison of the proposed subject recommended 
permanent parking rates to both the original parking 
rates previously approved by the Board of Supervisors 
and to the trial parking rates established by the Parking 
and Traffic Commission, is shown in Attachment I, 
provided by Mr. Steven Lee of the Parking Authority. 
Attachment II, provided by Mr. Lee, explains the 
adjustments between the previously established trial 
parking rates and the proposed subject permanent 
parking rates at the seven City-owned parking facilities. 

According to Mr. Lee, the existing parking rates for the 
seven subject City-owned parking facilities were 
implemented by the DPT on a trial basis as follows: 



Garage 


Trial Period 
Start Date 


360-day Expiration 
Datei 


Civic Center Garage 


September 1, 2001 


August 26, 2002 


Ellis O'Farrell Garage 


March 1, 2001 


February 26, 2002 


16 th and Hoff Street Garage 


March 1, 2001; 
December 1, 2001 


February 26, 2002; 
November 26, 2002* 


Performing Arts Garage 


October 1, 2001 


September 25, 2002 


324 8 th Avenue Parking Lot 


August 14, 2001 


August 9, 2002 


330 9 th Avenue Parking Lot 


August 14, 2001 


August 9, 2002 


421 18 th Avenue Parking Lot 


August 14, 2001 


August 9, 2002 



* According to Mr. Lee, trial valet parking rates were implemented on March 1, 2001 and 
increased long-term valet parking rates were implemented on December 1, 2001 for the 
16 th and Hoff Street Garage. 

According to Mr. Lee, the DPT implemented the parking 
rates on a trial basis to meet the Department's objectives 
to reduce traffic, promote short-term transient parking, 
discourage low-occupancy commuter parking and increase 
revenues in City-owned parking facilities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



As shown in Attachment III, provided by Mr. Lee, the 
subject seven City-owned parking facilities currently have 
a total parking space capacity of approximately 2,600 
parking spaces. According to Mr. Lee, the 2,600 parking 
spaces accommodate both approximately 968 monthly 
parking patrons and approximately 101,500 transient 
parking patrons per month. 

1. Attachment III, also contains projected parking 
revenues for FY 2001-2002 and for FY 2002-2003 for the 
subject seven City-owned parking facilities. As shown in 
Attachment III, Mr. Lee estimates that the proposed 
permanent parking rates for all seven City-owned parking 
facilities will generate estimated total gross parking 
receipts of $8,643,600 in FY 2001-2002 or $76,038 more 
than the actual parking receipts of $8,567,562 collected in 
FY 2000-2001. Also shown in Attachment III, Mr. Lee 
estimates that the proposed permanent parking rates for 
all seven parking facilities will generate estimated total 
parking receipts of $8,881,000 in FY 2002-2003 or 
$313,438 more than the actual parking receipts of 
$8,567,562 collected in FY 2000-2001. According to Mr. 
Lee, the projected total parking receipts for the Civic 
Center Garage for FY 2001-2002 and the projected total 
parking receipts for the Ellis O'Farrell Garage were both 
affected by the events of September 11, 2001. 

2. In Attachment II Mr. Lee explains the valet transient 
parking rates at the 16 th and Hoff Street Garage. 

3. Mr. Lee advises that trial monthly carpool rates at the 
Ellis O'Farrell Garage and the 16 th and Hoff Street 
Garage, as shown in Attachment I, were designed to 
encourage carpooling and to open up more parking spaces 
for increased short term parking. To qualify for the 
carpool rate there must be three or more occupants in the 
vehicle. According to Mr. Lee, the "Re-opening Garage 
Fee" rates listed in Attachment I do not accrue to the City 
but rather accrue to the garage operators. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy decision for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



.crimen" i 



CIVIC fFMFR GAEAHE 



! "3 "."""i. 



Dcv /?« 


r*<; fC 


omino until "r"" n,r] 


0.0 - 


1.0 


Hour 


1.0 - 


2.0 


Hours 


2.0 - 


3.0 


Hours 


3.0 - 


4.0 


Hours 


4.0 - 


5.0 


Hours 


5.0 - 


6.0 


Hours 


6.0 - 


7.0 


Hours 


Los: Ticks: 




Soecia 


Ever 


: 


Motorc 


ycle 




Studen 


: 




Bicvcl 


z 




Berkel 


ey Re 


penory Theatre/Ban 


Ovem 


ght F 


a: Rate 


Ovem 


ghc F 


l3: Rate Hours 



Original 


T. 


•ial 


Parking 


Par 


king 


Rates 


Rates 


1.50 




1.50 


3.00 




3.00 ' 


4.50 




±.50 


6.00 




6.00 


S.OO 




8.00 


10.00 




10.00 


12.00 




12.00 


18.00 




13.00 


8.00 




9.50 


1.00 




1.00 


5.00 




5.00 


Free 




Free 


N/A 




4.00 


N/A 




2.00 



(9:00 PM to 9:00 AM Mon through 
(9:00 PM to 12:00 PM Sat and Sun) 



Proposed 

Permanent 

Parking 

Rates 



1.50 
3.00 
4.50 
6.00 
S.OO 
10.00 
12.00 
1S.00 
9.50 
1.00 
5.00 
Free 
4.00 
2.00 
Fri) 



Fvenin? Rai£S (~:00 r,m unf r ' ! C!n*in?i 

0.0 - 1.0 Hour 

1.0 - 2.0 Hours 

2.0 - 3.0 Hours 

3.0 - 4.0 Hours 

Monthly P a ~ '-' ; n g 

Regular 

Reside-: 

Motorcycle 

Government 

Ciry Departments 

Carpool 

Restricted 

Restricted - i>'c Parking ber-veen 9:00 AM r .c 

\ ' i g r J ' j ^ n ^ o 1 1<; f'mro^ 



Lcs: Access Care 
Damaged Access Care 

P.e-ccsnina Caraze Fee 



1.50 


1.50 


1.50 


3.00 


3.00 


3.00 


4.50 


4.50 


4.50 


6.00 


6.00 


6.00 


156.25 


156.25 


•56.25 


90.00 


90.00 


90.00 


25.00 


2 5. CO 


25.00 


125.00 


125.00 


125.00 


75.00 


75.00 


75.00 


75.00 


75.00 


75.00 


•S'/A 


75.00 


"5.00 


00 PM Monday 


tnrcugh Friday; 




25.00 


25 GC 


25.00 


25.00 


2 5. CO 


2 5.00 


25.00 


*; « iv 


2 5 00 


50 GO 


50.CC 


50 00 


50.00 


50.00 


50.00 




10 6:00 pm) 



Original 
Parking 

Rates 

1.00 

3.00 

5.00 

7.00 

9.00 

12.00 

15.00 

15.00 

15.00 

3.00 

1.00 
3.00 
5.00 



Maximum Sunday Day Rate 




00 pm un til dasmg} 



Maximum Evening Ra te 




5.00 

1.00 
3.00 
5.00 

5.00 

20.00 
10.00 



195.00 
•sV-i 



N A 

25.00 
N/A 

:5.0C 

X/A 

ir P. Q 



i rici 

P -, _ > - : 

t ar.-ving 

Rates = 

2.00 

5.00 

4.00 

6.00 

9.00 

12.00 

15.00 

20.00 

20.00 

3.00 

1.00 
2.00 
3.00 
4.00 
5.00 
5.00 

LOO 
2.00 
3.00 
4.00 
5.00 
5.00 

25.00 

10.00 



250.00 
125.0C 



25.00 



25.00 
50.00 
50.00 



ProDosed 

3 er~cne^ 

Parkins 

Races 

2.00 

5.00 

4.00 

6.00 

9.00 

12.00 

15.00 

20.00 

20.00 

3.00 



2.00 
3.00 
4.00 
6.00 

6.00 

1.00 
2.00 
3.00 
4.00 
5.00 
5.00 

25.00 
11.00 

250.00 
125.00 

25.00 
25.0C 
-5.00 
50.00 
50 nn 



FI3. T2I-02UHU) H: S fl CITY i CO Or S. F. 



PASSING D£?T 



"£L : 4 L 5 



ss; 



£z £tacnne nt t 



metered essa *a ».• 

7}«riw ^-^ ^.^ w 

w;/ Day Xaitz 

Transient VjMi^i- v . _ , . 

■^Z * 0n ' y 

Hoots 
Hows 

Hours 
Hours 
Hours 
Hours 
Hours 

Transient Vehicles KM- n . - 

— Ecurs 

2 "° - 3.0 Eobs 

3 -° " *-a Hours 

" ■ 5.0 Ron 

Zoning Rati. faA* __ w . 

'• u coat 

'■° - 2.0 p^ 
J" - 3.0 Eoun 

24 Hour rr.isi.— •— . 

Lost Tick;: 



Critical 


Trial 


Psricag 


Parldno 


Rate 


Rjt;j 


0.25 





2.00 
4.00 



0.0 
!.0 
2.0 
3.0 
4.Q 
5.0 
6.0 
7.0 



1.0 
2J3 
3.0 
-t.O 

s.o 

6.0 
7.0 
24 







N/A 



75.00 
N/A 



6.00 



"5.00 
N/A 





Proposed 


Trial 
Pricing 
SUtes 


Permanent 
P-rlcing 



2. CO 
2.C0 
2.00 

"j.OO 
4.50 
6.00 
3.00 

12.00 



-00 



"5.00 
50.00 



1.00 
2.00 
3.00 
•S.00 
6.00 



2.00 

4.00 

6.00 

12.00 

12.00 



100.00 
50.00 



Laie.VfontJUy o, 
Aessss C-d De ? e 



25. CO 
25.00 
25. CO 
50.00 
50.00 



Exhibit C 



^QBHIV£lAE iailAEAG£ 



icnment I 



°-° " 1-0 Hour 

L0 - 2.0 Hours 

10 - 3.0 Hours 

3 '° - 4.0 Hours 

4 -° - 5.0 Hours" 

5 -° " 6.0 Hours 

6 -° - 7.0 Hours 

24 Hour Maximum 

Los; Ticks: 

Early Bird 

Motorcycle 

Special Event 

Overnight Flat Rats 

Overnight Flat Ran Hours 

Must enter before closing and 

remain overnight. 




Mis 



Late Monthly Payments 
Lost Access Card 
Damaged Access Card 
Access Card Deoosit 



Original 
Parking 
Rates 
1.50 
3.00 
4.50 
.... 6.00 
8.00 
10.00 
12.00 
15.00 
15.00 
7.00 
2.00 
8.00 
3.00 
(From closing 
until 9:00 am) 



140.00 
75.00 
75.00 



R« 



-opening Garase Fee 



25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
50.00 
50.00 



l riai 
Parking 
Rates 
1.50 
3.00 
4.50 
6.00 
3.00 
10.00 
12.00 
14.00 
15.00 
7.00 
2.00 
9.50 
2.00 



Prooosed 
Permanent 

"arming 

Rates 

1.50 

3.00 

4.50 

6.00 

S.OO 

10.00 

12.00 

14.00 

14.00 

7.00 

■2.00 

9.50 '-' 

2.00 



(from 9:00 PM until n,„ 

1 unc ?» l-s noon next - 

= ra_e is open for business) 



140.00 
75.00 
75.00 



25.00 
25.00 
25.00 
50.00 
50.00 



140.00 
75.00 
75.00 



25.00 
25.00 

25.00 
50.00 

50.00 



At Cachmen t I 




— 


~ 


CJ 


a- 


~Ei 




>> 




































= 


5 


c 


C/3 






S3 


3 


<-J 


.— 


ri 


•_ 


























U 












. ~ 


2 


u 


>1 


< 


o 


™ 


o" 


</") 


= 


o 




G 


c\ 


c 






II II 

"= ~ c H H 



•5 2 S 



< ~ ^ = 



5 S S - 

. I — C\ t^a 



j 



I 2 j 
£ 9. - 

■8 -8 5 s 

*- ° o _: 

aSog 



"? 2 2 
- c_ — 



>>2 u 



>. •- 



— CM 

£ c tr 



-6 < jr 



— 3 = c c 

-j c •= s 



j c •= s 









B s|< 



n - — — 




City and Cour.tv o/ssn tr- Z ~ 



W1LUE L=/flS BROWN r» w-. 
FRED M. HAWOUN E^.^JV?^' 

' ""* rPIV = DIRECTOR 

RONALD SZETO ArTrivj, 

• ^ "NG DlrSCTOR. PARING ALACRITY 




MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 

TO: 
FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



February 20, 2002 

Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analyst Office 

Steven Lee ^f 
Principal Analyst 
Parking Authority 

File No. 02-0144, Resolution Approving Trail Rates as P. 

Rates at Various City Garages and Metered Par^o Lote"^ 



^l^&SoffS! me r morand ™ » l0 Caress your questions reardina the one^r" 

diffe-e-^ GarHSe ' the Rev « u « Projections for FY ?000 ™r °\ e -. atIons o: 

-noes oerween the Tna! Rates and the Proposed Pen, Jnr'pSing R a T e ° ^ 

un^fone I lT a ^! U ^\ G f rage ^ *? 16 * and Koff S*eet Garage is joint-v ooe-^H 
Inc /DA t a t § Agresment, Gated October 1, 1997 berwe-- L2; j? erated 

incTDAJA, Inc. and the City. The Manasement \-i-nri X rl S Con «?^. 

manao" r-i* i <th 5 TT __ J _ = "•'=■ w — "^nt also recuiren r-,-» o-, 

& "' y - ^U art ~" meeting with the M'^sion Dic-nr' r«-,— 

commenced on \f*r~fc i ->nm n • ■ lu " iC -^^.^.gcva :: a D , li:ve .^ 
ofvale--- ' ° 0L L,ncsr ^ ster ^0'"^Mana 2 eme-^:,X . 

rh- »/■-'"", P e -tion from March 1, 2001 through De~Aibe-'?nni ^?, Sa1, : " S Ccs: 
*« Mameittl services. The Total Parkin, Receiots (C^TC °^ S Sl4S *"2 for 

° m M «= I. 2001 though December 1,2001 co^h^^^V ^ ° f S:5 ~'^ 
However, the 16 * & HofrScres: ^ ^^ « *£«?« « jv S18«3. 

«n monca before implementing vale: attendant series P * y=2r for ths **™ 

9 



.-.Ctacmaent 11 
?ase 2 of 2 



File No. 02-0144 
February 20, 2002 
Page 2 of 2 

We feel that the services provided to the community by the 16* &. Koff Street Garase 
greatly improves the quality of life for the residents, merchants and visitors of that 
neighborhood and that this program is worthy of continuing despite the initial reduction 
in revenue to the City. 

In regard to the comparison of FY 2000-2001 Actual to the FY 2001-2002 Projected and 
the FY 2002-2003 Projected Parking Receipts, we project an increase of S76.038 or 
9/1 th of a percent for FY 2001-2002 compared to FY 2000-2001 Actual. We project that 
FY 2002-2003 will be above the FY 200 1 -2002 by 5237,400 or 2.7 percent. 

Difference?; hpf ween Trial Rates and Proposed Permanent Parking Rntps- 

Performing Arts Garage - Lost Ticket from 515.00 to 514.00. The Lost Ticket Rate 
should equal the 7.0-Hour Rate of 512.00 plus the Overnight Flat Rate of S2.00. 

Civic Center Garage - No Difference. 

Ellis O'Farrell Garage - We propose adjusting the Sunday Day Rates to reflect the Mon - 
Sat. Day Rates with a Maximum Sunday Day Rate of 56.00. The Lost Ticket and 24- 
Hour Maximum of 51 1.00 for Sundays reflect the Maximum Sunday Day Rate of S6 00 
plus the Maximum Evening Rate of S5.00. 

16 &. Koff Street Garage- We propose to discontinue the All Day Rates and imDlement 
Day Rates and Evening Rates to balance the needs of the community and the demand for 
parking at the garage. Tne initial Trial Rates attracted too many long-term patrons and 
the second Trail Rates caused the garage to be underutilized because the patrons are 
either unwilling or could not afford to pay the rates. Please note that all Transient 
vehicles are valet parked and Monthly patrons self-park on the roof level. 

Metered Parking Lots - No Difference. 

Please do not hesitate to call me at 554-9869 if you have any questions or concerns 



r.. . A?_<.rNO-R^tcMcmo to \!.Singic-.on re permanent —in 2-20-02.doc 

10 



H4R.-0TQ21THU1 16:22 CITY k CO OF S. F. PARKING DE?T TEL . Attachment ■ 

rage 1 Oi 4 

City and County of San Francisco 



SAN FRANCISCO 




OEPAHTUe.NT CF PARAMO X TRAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWS BROWN, JR, "Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN. EXSCUTlVg DIRECTOR 

RONALD S2ETO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



DATE: March 7, 2002 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Analyst 

Budget Analyst's Omcc 

FROM: Ronald Szeto, Acting Director Do 

Parking Authority 

RE: Trial Parking Rates File No. 02-0144 



The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a status update on the 121 O'Farrell Street 
ground floor commercial space per your request. This request was initiated at the 
February 27, 2002 Finance Committee meeting of the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors in conjunction with consideration of trial parking rates at the Ellis O'Farrell 
Garage (File No. 02-0144). 

It is important to note that the parking rates being considered are only applicable to our 
parking patrons and have no relationship to the ground floor commercial space lease in 
question. 

Pursuant lo the 1992 Lease between the Cily and County of San Francisco and the City of 
San Francisco Ellis-CFarrcll Parking Corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation 
is authorized to lease commercial snaces within the Ellis-O'Farrell Garage (the 
"Garage"). 

At the February 5, 2002 Parking and Traffic Commission meeting, Mr. Jerome Garchik, 
attorney representing 15-20 small business owners of the 121 O'Farrell site 
(subsequently known as 121 O'Farrell Merchants Association "Merchants"), reverted 
thai bis clients are getting evicted. Mr. Garchik further states that the Corporation is 
seeking "dot com" boom or rent increases and is looking for a high profile tenant. Mr. 
Steven Wally. owner of Jewelry By Steven since 1984 at the 121 O'Farrell site, also 
commented at the meeting. Mr. Wally asked the Parking and Traffic Commission to 
provide some assistance to the Merchants from being evicted. Tr.e Department of 
Parking 2nd Traffic offered to review the situation and provide assistance tc the small 
business owner. 



12 

(415] SSi-PARK FAJC U'.z] IZ4-1ZH 2£ Van Ness Avenue. 



MA&-.07 02(TKl-] 16.-22 CITY k CO OF S. F. PARKING DEFT A u 

•- Attachment I V 

fage A or 4 ' 



Maureen Singicton 
3-T-Q2 

Pag- 2 of 4 

Eludings 

SSS^f^ 011 ^ a Iease *Sre«nen! with Wholesale Jeweled Fvm 

C WJE") /or the 121 OTarrell commercial snace f 4 4B SmiS^ LLC 

leases the commercial spare to the Merchants. ' q f ^ ! " c WJH s ^" 

• On May 1, 2000, the Corporation and WJE asre-d to amend rh* ■ ■ ■ 

terminate said lease on May 31, 200 1 Thereafter he W, "^ l " 7 le * s = t0 

-month basis with either pany having^"* t * %£%£££*? ta V"*" 
notice. Subsequently, on December 24, 2001 WJE ea^ t^t yS wnnBB 

Corporarion and to the Merchants effective FebSj 20 £ i ?°S J * l ° * C 
pve at fa, thrc= (3) othcr u?da:es/notic=s Q Stow^. da, \ on ' WJ£ 
termination of the le.se. (Attached are the Notices) ** m * * C 

Corporation, in prcparadon of rendng the 121 OTarrell comm* ■ i 

alienation process for an exclusive broker. CQ <™erc,al space, sraned a 

At the Corporation's June 28, 2000 mc°dn? the r n m n „ f - 

» adverdse the commercial space XS^SS^ * IT $?* ^ 

agreement commencing September 5, 2000. 6 " m ° nth i,s:fn S 

Blaiteis advertised the commercial space and in Octohrr onnn 

s.gns above the main entrance of d5SSS! I^aee ' P ° St£d " Fcr Le - e " 

-erne of the small business owners of die 121 O'Farn-H .„ 

new business location. " SpaCC slarted s «rch 

Ir i February 2001, the Parking Coloration granted Blatais an , , ■ 
agreement „„„] September 5, 200 1 . M extensi °n <o * 

^September 2001, the tenant of the 133 OTarrell cornmercial < „ 

£0 was ev.cted for non-payment of rent and the iSoSSSKj "^ 



ins for a 



.istinc 



la September 2001, Blatteis identified Saab Cars im* i 

P^y, with sufficient far.dine, for the 121 Ot£*5 S t W k" ° n ! y imCresied 
Corporate has been in a go'cd faith n^titSSft Lb a, " ^ P ^" 
gX expbci, non-interference clause, the\cod fa^n £" no, ~ "' ^ 
Corporate and Saab would negotiate until a concius^ • f " *« 



not 
that the 



On October 15, 2001, subject io the Saab cood faith „« h ■ , 

exited a listing agreement wi* a aew bri* D Sffll T' •** C 

fcr im marketing of both the 121 and 1 33 OriSfril^ § R ^ :> S;rvi "< 



13 



Attachment IV 
^age 3 of 4 



Maureen Sinsleton 

3-7-02 

Pase 3 of 4 



On October 17, 2001 Board of Directors meeting, the broker presented eisht offers 
(of which three were made by 121 O'Farrell small business owners). In November 

2001, the Corporation executed a ten (10) year lease, commencing on January 1, 

2002, for the 133 O'Farrell site with a partnership comprised of an established outside 
jeweler and one of the small business owners of the 121 O'Farrell site. The small 
business is and still will continue to sub-lease space from WJE until the build-out of 
the 133 O'Farrell site is completed (until March 31, 2002). The small business owner 
reported that several other merchants verbally agreed to rent a portion of the 133 
OTarrell site. 

On December 24, 2001, as mentioned above, WJE served notice of termination 
(effective February 28, 2002) to the Merchants for the 121 O'Farrell site. 

On February 5, 2002 Parking and Traffic Commission meeting, representative of the 
small business owners commented that they were being evicted from a public 
property without proper notice and asked the Parking and Traffic Commission for 
assistance. 



Options 

• What appears as a straightforward request by the Merchants became very complicated 
as we began our assistance. 

• There are seven (7) separate parties involved in these two commercial spaces. The 
City, the Corporation, WJE, the Merchants, the brokers, Saab, and the partners of the 
133 O'Farrell site. 

• The City and the Corporation do not have legal authorization to dictate terms and 
condition involving the contractual relationship between WJE and the Merchants. 

• If the City directs the Corporation to terminate their good faith negotiations with Saab 
and conduct exclusive negotiations with the Merchants, then the City would be 
interfering in a contractual relationship and together with the Corporation could be 
liable for all costs incurred by Saab and brokers. Also, the City maybe liable for 
damages to the partners of the 133 O'Farrell site. Furthermore, the City would 
reward tenants who failed to act responsibly in seeking new business locations and 
would punish the 133 O'Fanell partners merchants who did act responsiblv in 
moving into the 133 O'Farrell site. If the City decides to pursue this option, the 
Department of Parking and Traffic recommends that the Merchants shall indemnify 
the City and the Corporation, and that the Merchants shall be fully responsible for any 
and all subsequent liability, including but not limited to, damages mentioned above. 

14 



MAP- .:()"■ 02 ITHUI 16:22 CITY k CO OF S. F. PARKING DEPT Attachment IV 

r'ase A or. A 



Maureea Singleton 

3-7-02 

Pags 4 of 4 



In addition, the Merchants shall secure proper insurance and bonds tc fulfill the 
indemnification requirement. 

Since the lease agreement with WJE would have expired on February 2S, 2002, the 
Department of Parking and Traffic encouraged the Corporation and WJE to extend 
the lease agreement for 60-90 days. The Corporation through WJE proposed a 90- 
day extension for the Merchants under the same terms and conditions. 

The Merchants are urged to use this rime to explore any and all options. Tne 
Department of Parking and Traffic suggests that the Merchants contact the Fifth and 
Misoion Garage for available commercial spaces as another option. 

If the City allows the Corporation to continue their good faith negotiations with Saab 
the Ciry would not be liable for any poLcntial damages. The Merchants would have at 
leas: 90 days to explore other options. Since the market conditions arc favorable to 
renters, the Merchants may find abetter location at a reasonable rent- The partners of 
133 O'Farrell would continue to conduct business as usual from the 121 or 133 
O'Farrell sites. If the good faith negotiations with Saab were to break off naturally, 
then the Merchants will have a second opportunity to participate for this site in a 
competitive process. 



Ce: yrc-J Hamdun, Executive Director, DPT 

Diana Mammons, DPT 
Daniel Hwang, Small Business 
Richard Dole, cllis-O'Fanrell Corporation 
Honorable Member!, Parlcing and Traffic Commiisicn 
Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors 



n\TA.1>C*>,-C.ajlcjvmemo '0 M ^ngiran re 121 <y?inzl\ (EO).Joc 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 02-0643 

Departments: Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Item: Resolution (a) authorizing and approving the form of a 

lease purchase financing agreement to be awarded by the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to a lender for 
financing the acquisition of new electronic parking 
meters, and (b) ratifying previous actions taken in 
connection therewith. 

Description: On May 6, 2002, the Board of Supervisors considered a 

five year parking meter management agreement between 
the City and Serco Management Services, Inc. (Serco) for 
(1) the purchase and installation of 25,250 electronic 
meters, revenue collection services and coin counting 
services (File 02-0494), and (2) the related "Proposition J" 
certification that revenue collection services and coin 
counting services could be provided by a private 
contractor at a lower cost than if the work were performed 
by City employees (File 02-0495). The Board will again 
consider these two proposed resolutions at their May 13, 
2002 meeting. 

Approval of this proposed resolution would authorize a 
lease purchase financing agreement between the DPT and 
a lender to be selected through a competitive bid process 
to finance the estimated cost of $27,894,691 for software 
and hardware engineering services, including software 
design, development, the acquisition and installation of 
25,250 new electronic parking meters. 

Ms. Julia Dawson of DPT reports that the industry 
standard for the useful life of electronic parking meters is 
seven years. Therefore, according to Ms. Nadia Sesay of 
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the lease purchase 
financing agreement term would be up to seven years, in 
accordance with relevant Federal Tax and State law. 
Attachment I, provided by the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance, is an estimated debt service schedule based on a 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



principal amount of $27,895.000 1 with a fixed interest 
rate of 5.5 percent per annum. 

Ms. Sesay reports that the DPT intends to award a 
contract to a lender through a competitive bid process 
based on the lowest interest rate offered by the lender. 
According to Ms. Sesay, the DPT, the City Attorney's 
Office, the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and the 
Purchasing Division will evaluate the bids received from 
lenders and award the lease financing agreement to the 
lender charging the lowest interest rate. The lender 
selected is required to be in compliance with the City's 
Equal Benefits Ordinance and all other applicable City 
laws. According to Ms. Theresa Alvarez of the City 
Attorney's Office, this resolution authorizes the DPT to 
award a contract to a lender for financing the acquisition 
of the new electronic parking meters. 

Under this lease purchase financing agreement, the 
selected lender would pay Serco a total of $27,894,691 for 
the equipment, software and installation services. The 
City's lease finance debt would then be retired through 
semi-annual lease purchase payments appropriated in 
DPTs future annual budgets from parking meter 
revenues deposited to the Off-Street Parking Fund. Such 
appropriations would be subject to appropriation approval 
by the Board of Supervisors. 

As shown in the attached debt service schedule 
(Attachment I), the DPT would be required to make 14 
payments of $2,427,550.28 each over the seven year term 
of the proposed financing agreement, for a total payment 
of $33,985,703.92 including $27,895,000.02 in principal 
and $6,090,703.90 in interest. Ms. Dawson states that the 
source of the initial lease purchase payment of 
$2,427,550.28 to be paid under the proposed seven-year 
financing agreement is parking meter revenues to be 
included in the DPTs FY 2002-2003 budget. For the six 
year period from FY 2003-2004 through FA* 2008-2009, 
annual lease purchase payments of $4,S55,100.56. 



1 Although under the parking meter management agreement the City would be obligated to pay 
Serco S27.S94.691 for the purchase and installation of the electronic parking meter equipment and 
software, the Mayor's Office of Public Finance has based its financing analysis on a loan of 
S27.S95.000. 



17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

consisting of two biannual payments of S2, 427, 550. 28 
each, would be included in DPT's annual budgets. In FY 
2009-2010. DPT's annual budget would include the final 
lease purchase payment of $2,427,550.28 for a total 
payment of $33,985,703.92. All payments would be 
subject to appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. According to Ms. Sesay, there would be no 
penalty for early repayment. 

According to Ms. Dawson, it is anticipated that the total 
estimated cost of $33,985,703.92 of the proposed lease 
financing agreement would be covered by annual 
increased parking meter revenues of $5,922,000, as 
currently projected by DPT and certified by the 
Controller. 

Comments: 1. The Budget Analyst notes that in Attachment II, 

prepared by the DPT, the General Fund support to the 
Off-Street Parking Fund is estimated to increase from 
$1,168,298 in FY 2002-2003, the first fiscal year to 
include a payment for the proposed lease financing 
agreement to $2,211,134 m FY 2008-2009. However, the 
General Fund support to the Off-Street Parking Fund is 
estimated to decrease from $2,211,134 in FY 2008-2009 to 
$19,010 in FY 2009-2010, the last fiscal year to include a 
payment for the proposed lease financing agreement, due 
to the fact that there would only be one lease financing 
payment in FY 2009-2010 as opposed to two payments in 
the preceeding six year period FY 2003-2004 through FY 
2008-2009. According to Ms. Dawson, if the projected 
increase in annual parking meter revenues exceeds 
$5,922,000, then the General Fund support to the Off- 
Street Parking Fund would further decrease by the 
amount of the additional increase in parking meter 
revenues. 

2. In our review of this proposed resolution, the Budget 
Analyst found that the annual lease financing payments 
submitted by DPT to the Budget Analyst during the 
analysis of the parking meter management agreement 
(File 02-0494) differed from the amounts submitted by the 
Mayor's Office of Public Finance for the purpose of this 
report on the proposed lease financing agreement. 
Further, the DPT did not include in its analysis the final 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

payment to be made in FY 2009-2010 under the proposed 
lease financing agreement. In her attached memorandum 
(Attachment III), Ms. Dawson states that "...we did not 
notice that we had accidentally omitted one finance 
payment from the financial projections. We have corrected 
this oversight and submitted revised projections at your 
request." 

3. According to Ms. Alvarez, although the proposed 
resolution includes a provision to ratify previous actions 
taken in connection with the proposed lease purchase 
financing agreement, Ms. Alvarez is not aware of any 
such actions that have been taken. 

Recommendation: Because the related electronic parking meter resolutions, 

Files 02-0494 and 02-0495, are to be considered by the 
Board of Supervisors at their May 13, 2002 meeting, the 
Budget Analyst considers approval of the proposed 
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. However, if the Board of Supervisors 
approves Files 02-0494 and 02-0495, the Budget Analyst 
recommends approval of this proposed resolution. 



19 






Attachment I 



City and County of San Francisco 
Deoartment of ParKing and Traffic 



Cost of Funds Payment Rate 


14 Payments 


ILevel Payment 


Closing Fees 


S27, 875, 000.00 5.50% 


2 per year 

5.50% 


52.427,550.28 


SO. 00 













After Payment 


PMT 


Total Payment Due 


Interest 


Principal 


After Payment 


Termination 






Payment Due 


Payment Due 


Principal Balalnce 


Value 




S0.00 






527,895,000.00 




1 


$2,427,550.28 


$767,112.50 


51.660,437.78 


526,234,562.22 


$26,662,233.74 


2 


S2,427,550.28 


2721,450.46 


51,706,099.82 


524,528,462.40 


$24,901,239.31 


3 


S2, 427, 550.28 


5674,532.72 


S1, 753,017. 55 


522,775,444.84 


$23,096,220.01 


4 


52.427,550.28 


S626. 324.73 


$1,801,225.55 


S20.974.21 9.29 


$21,246,075.23 


5 


$2, 427. 550.28 


S576.791.03 


51,850,759.25 


519,123,460.04 


$19,349,676.34 


6 


52,427,550.28 


5525,895.15 


51,901,655.13 


SI 7,221 ,804.91 


S17,405,868.48 


7 


S2, 427, 550.28 


$473,599.64 


$1,953,950.64 


SI 5,267,854.27 


S15.413.464.91 


8 


$2, 427,550.28 


5419,865.99 


$2,007,684.29 


$13,260,169.98 


$13,371,251.26 


9 


S2, 427, 550. 28 


5364,654.68 


S2.062.895.60 


S1 1,197,274.38 


S1 1,277,982.25 


10 


$2,427,550.28 


$307,925.05 


52. 119,625.23 


S9, 077,649. 15 


$9,132,381.54 


11 


S2.427.550.28 


$249, 635.35 


S2.177.914.93 


$6,899,734.22 


$6,933,140.30 


12 


S2.427.550.28 


$189,742.69 


S2,237,807.59 


$4,661,926.63 


$4,678,919.04 


13 


S2,427,550.28 


$128,202.98 


$2,299,347.30 


S2.362.579.33 


$2,368,341.74 


14 


S2.427. 550.28 


$64,970.93 


$2,362,579.35 


$0.00 


S1.00 


S33,985,703.92 


S6, 090,703. 90 


$27,895,000.02 



20 



TOTf 



CITY S* CO. OF Sf PARKING D! 



Aciacnment 11 





con 




o 


<o 


p- cn ~- cn a 


o 


c 


ro 


<=> 


O O CN 






co 


n s in cn □ 




m 


CO 




O o_ co_ 




o 


"""". 


""- "*". "■"" """", "*"- 


p- 


in 


CO 


5 


cn* co* cd 




cn" 


P-* 


co* co cn* cn p- 


CN* 




P-" 


o 


M O Q 






n 


i- C) C CO 3 


rN 


CN 


CO 


£ 


in io o_ 






OI 


oi n_ ro ~cr -<r 




~ _ 


cn 


co" r-* in 






to* 


r- " it »- 




cn" 


o" 




"~ ' 






t~ 








*~ 




_^ 














1 




a a a 




t 




o o i~- r^ co 






CO 


£Tl 


o o m 




CO 


cn 


-o- ~- cn in ci 


a 


o 


C7> 


O 


°. °. ""I 




— ^ 


"X 


CN o — cn r-_ 


p-_ 


■^ 


IN 




CN* a* CN 

N O CN 






in 


n" c" V cn f- 


CN 


m 


in" 








LO 


co r- CO in o 


CN 


m 


in 


£ 


in co a 




CN 


cn 


co cn rsi ^r T 




co_ 


C71_ 


co" r— " m" 




CN 


co" 


r- " t t- 




rr* 


co" 


*■■ 














T " 























C O r- 




in 


'-3 


cp o co cn o 


O 




CO 


CO 


c a co 




CO 


T 


o 3 a co oi 


o 


D 


•<T 


o 


o_ o in 




in 


■"— 


T CD CO C P^ 


r^ 


"-" _ 


x"~ 




cm" o" :n" 




CN 


to* 


d cn n cn s 


cn" 


„n" 


P-" 


o 


cn co in 




a 


10 T CN CO O 


CN 


in 


m 


>- 
u. 


lC CO CO 




CD 


«n 


■T *- CN T "CT 




X) 


m 


co" p." m" 




«-"' 


co" 


p." TT »- 




~r 


CO 


*" 






""" 








' r " 




^_^ 


















o o ro 




s 




»- O t- CO CO 


3 




ID 


p. 






OT 


oi m co cn ai 


O 


C 


cn 


o 


O O an 




ID 


in 


— _ 05 in cn r- 


P- 


•^ 


m_ 


iS 


CN O" P-" 

CN C3 CO 




O 


o" 


CN V — CO P- 


a 


in 


o" 


o 




IS 


p- 


1 NON O 


in 


p- 


> 


m_ ud_ it 




p-_ 


r^ 


CN 3_ ■<-_ -<t -<r 




= 


^ 


U. 


co' £•£ in* 




— 


CO." 


p." tt" »-" 




xr 


CO 








, ~ 








*" 




^^ 


















o a o 




rt 


n 


to a p- in co 

in r- co rO cn 


o 




CN 




o o o 




s. 


N* 


o 


c 


■* 


g 


°. °. "*"". 




l-_ 


cn p- 'o in p- 


r^-_ 


^~_ 


P~ 




CN O 00* 
CN O CN 




M 


co" 


— " p." co in" p. 


CN 


in 


ro* 








a* 


co o in — o 


CN 


m 


Ol 


> 
u. 


IO ID n 




in 


r— _ 


o_ ct t- -<t "er 




C0 


p. 


a" p." in" 




,—* 


S-" 


P-" co' v-" 




N" 


p-~ 


T- — 














*" 























O O CN 






co 


Q ^ 7 O CO 


o 




CO 


in 


O C «r- 




CO 


m 


in o cn r- cn 

T O C T- P 


3 


c 


cn 


O a_ cn 




h- 


<o 


P-_ 


^* 


ID 


i 

a 


CN O CN* 




CN 


K 


co* co" to" in" p- 


CN* 


Li" 


f~T 


CN O p- 




CO 


m 


NOfO o 


CN 


m 


m 


ID CO 1- 




n 


Tf 


05 p- 1- *T T 




CC 


■c 


£ 


co" p-" in" 




^-" 


p*" 


co" co" i-" 




xr' 


P-" 


"~ 






""" 








*" 




_ 


















o o in 




L^ 


o 


O O T P- CD 


□ 




o 


| 


a o t 




CM 


P- 


CO O CN r- CT> 


O 


O 


p- 


a o_ cn 




cn_ 


T~_ 


ic n co o p 


P* 


r- 


T- 


Q 


cn" o" CN 

Nor' 




a 


CO* 


p* co" co" o p- 


a 


m' 


co" 




CD 


ri 


CN CO T CO C 


^T 


CO 


in o o 








O 10 »- CO T 




CS 




£ 


co" IV." io 




T-" 


h~" 


CO* co" t-" 




-T 


P-" 


*"* ' 






*" 








T " 






















c; a to 


m 


CQ 


CO 


CO CD T p^ CO O 




O 


CD 




o c: cn 

to o oi 


CN 


cn 


OI 


cn «- in — a o 




s 


cn 


2 


m 


CN 


m 


in t- co en p. a 




m 


Si 


co' p" m* 


0)* 


co' 


ff 


ii co co' a p in" 

CO p- -T =3 m T 




ps» 


Pf 


co O p- 


*T 


co 




CN 


O 


CO CO CO 






i-i 


rr in *- co — cn 




T 


CO 


£ 


O S -<T 




yS 


tj" 


CO* CO* •-" 




CN 


T* 




























3 


















a 


















"O 


















3 


















_ C 










c 
3 








fl 


























u_ 


E 






— 13 


















a 










a n 


E 
rs 






■£oS 

;c.y ' m 
u .2 c S ~ 
Q - _ "*""»"£ 

O > W 2 c 

S S -g = "2 

> — D = X 
» ■- » r c n 
a — i o - to ,. 
■" a.S5 CJ o a "" 

*- c c _ v- -r — 








SI 

c 


= 5 

CJ c 

° c „, 

o "^ p 

"5°|" 

f! s 


"5 

c 
y 

i 

a 
CJ 

"o 


3 

Q. 

e. 
c/5 

5 

£ 


a 
o 

e 
eg 

> 
o 
E 


3i 

c 

V. 
c 

CJ 

u 

_J 

a 


"- 
n 
c 
— 

5 


i^ 

CJ 

a 

UJ 


03 

> 
o 


— ro .* 
is — is 


C) 

ra 


OJ 


"ii 

a 


a 1 1 S .£ 5 2 

X CJ 'D s ; n e 


= 


c 


13 

o 


K 


— a- 


c/: 


a 


t- 


ai EL < ^ » 2 > 


CO 


ll 





21 



MAY -08 02 (WED) 15:06 CITY i CO OF S: PARKING 



Attachment III 



3AM F a A M C I G 




City and County of San Fran 



CISCO 



DEPARTMENT OF PARKING & THAFF1C 



WILUE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

FRED M. HAMDUN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 




MEMORANDUM 



To: 
From: 

Subject: 
Date: 



Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst Board of Supervisors 

Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Financ^^X^U^ 

Parking Meter Project Financing C-/ 



May 8, 2002 



When DPT initially provided financing information to the Budeet Analvsr we h*A 
received the final payment schedule from the Mayor's Office of Fin^ ce Be' "*. A 

already completed the financial attachment, Parking and Traffic snenTi,, f ™ ^ 

^at all of the other questions relating to the project ™ £fwe r o meeXS? g 
for the report. As , result , We did not nQtice ft w£ acdd <J o^d^n, r 
payment from the financial projections. We have corrected this v rsS and « h ,ff 
reused projections at your request. oversight and submitted 



(41SJ554-PARK F« (415) £54-9834 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 410 

22 



Son Francises, CA 94102-457S 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 02-0191 



Department: 



Item: 



Board of Supervisors 
Planning Department 

Ordinance releasing $263,000 placed on reserve in the FY 
2001-2002 Planning Department budget for computer 
equipment and $500,000 placed on reserve in the FY 
2001-2002 Planning Department budget for the Transbay 
Terminal Study. The proposed ordinance would also 
inappropriate the $500,000 reserved for the Transbay 
Terminal Study to the Board of Supervisors for (a) an 
environmental review of Board of Supervisors legislation 
amending the Planning Code (File No. 00-2108) at a cost 
of $263,000; and, (b) $237,000 for the Transbay Joint 
Powers Authority. 



Amount: 
Source of funds: 

Description: 



$763,000 

General Fund monies appropriated and reserved in the 
FY 2001-2002 budget for computer equipment ($263,000) 
and the Transbay Terminal Study ($500,000). 

The FY 2001-2002 Planning Department budget includes 
reserved funds in the amount of $263,000 for computer 
equipment. This proposed ordinance would authorize the 
release of $263,000 for expenditure by the Planning 
Department for computer equipment. Item 5, File 02-0145 
is the Budget Analyst's report on this release of $263,000 
in reserved funds. 



This proposed ordinance would also inappropriate 
$500,000 that is on reserve in the FY 2001-2002 Planning 
Department budget for a Transbay Terminal Study. The 
subject $500,000 would be reappropriated to the Board of 
Supervisors for (a) an environmental review of Board of 
Supervisors legislation amending the Planning Code (File 
No. 00-2108) at a cost of $263,000; and, (b) $237,000 for 
the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. 

File 00-2108 is a proposed ordinance that would amend 
Part II, Chapter II of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
(Planning Code) by (a) amending Section 124 to eliminate 
floor area ratio limits (the ratio of the gross floor area of 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



all the buildings on a lot to the area of the lot) for 
residential construction in certain C-3 (Downtown Office, 
Retail, General Commercial and Support) Zoning 
Districts; (b) amending Sections 215 and 216 to increase 
the maximum density ratio for dwelling units and group 
housing allowed in certain C (commercial and business) 
Zoning Districts and M (light industrial) Zoning Districts; 
and, (c) making a determination of consistency with the 
priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(B). That 
proposed ordinance (File 00-2108), which would have 
amended the Planning Code, was introduced on December 
4, 2000. On August 3, 2001, that ordinance was filed by 
the Board's Housing, Transportation and Land Use 
Committee. 

According to the Office of the Sponsor of this proposed 
ordinance, the intent of this ordinance is to reappropriate 
$263,000, of the original $500,000 appropriation which 
was placed on reserve for a Transbay Terminal Study, to 
the Board of Supervisors and then work-order the 
$263,000 back to the Planning Department for the specific 
purpose of conducting an environmental review of the 
proposed ordinance under File 00-2108, which was 
previously filed. 

This proposed ordinance would also reappropriate 
$237,000 to the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of 
transferring these funds to the Transbay Joint Powers 
Authority. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority was 
created April 4, 2001, pursuant to State law. The 
Transbay Joint Powers Authority consists of 5 members, 
including one appointed by the Peninsula Corridor Joint 
Powers Board (CalTrain), one appointed by AC Transit, 
and three appointed by the City and County of San 
Francisco. Of the San Francisco members, one is 
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one is appointed 
by the Municipal Transportation Agency Board of 
Directors, subject to Board of Supervisors approval, and 
one is appointed by the Mayor. The Transbay Joint 
Powers Authority has been designated as the entity that 
will design, build, and operate the proposed new Transbay 
Terminal. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to the Office of the Sponsor of the proposed 
ordinance, the $237,000 would then be transferred from 
the Board of Supervisors FY 2001-2002 budget to the 
Transbay Terminal Joint Powers Authority for uses 
related to the new Transbay Terminal project, and that 
such uses would be determined by the Joint Powers 
Authority. 



Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 02-0145 

Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Planning Department 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $263,000 for computer equipment. 

$263,000 

General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year (FY) 
2001-2002 Planning Department budget. 

In the FY 2001-2002 budget, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated $500,000 to the Planning Department for 
computer equipment, placing $263,000 on reserve pending 
submission to the Finance Committee of draft proposed 
Permanent Industrial Zoning Controls in the South of 
Market area, Mission District, Showplace Square area 
and the area near Pacific Bell Park. 

Attachment I, provided by the Planning Department, 
explains the status of the draft proposed Permanent 
Industrial Zoning Controls mentioned above. As stated by 
Mr. Amit Ghosh of the Planning Department in 
Attachment I, 

"On September 6, 2001 the Planning Commission 
established a permanent industrial zone in the 
form of a Special Use District in the core of the 
industrial zones." 
Mr. Ghosh continues, 

"Since October 2001 the Planning Department has 
been working on the Eastern Neighborhoods 
Community Planning Process. The end goal of this 
effort is to gather community input in regard to 
future land use alternatives in that part of San 
Francisco. With this information the Department 
will then draft permanent land use controls for the 
rest of the areas in the IPZ." 

Because the subject $263,000 was placed on reserve 
pending the submission to the Finance Committee of draft 
proposed Permanent Industrial Zoning Controls in the 
South of Market area. Mission District, Showplace Square 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

area and the area near Pacific Bell Park, and, according 
to the Planning Department, these draft permanent 
controls are not complete, the Budget Analyst considers 
release of the subject reserved funds to be a policy 
decision for the Board of Supervisors. 

Budget: Attachment II, provided by the Planning Department, is a 

budget totaling $263,424.21 for the computer equipment, 
including the $263,000 in subject reserved funds plus 
$424.21 which, according to Mr. Costolino Hogan of the 
Planning Department, would be absorbed in the Planning 
Department's FY 2001-2002 operating budget. 

The Budget Analyst has verified the attached proposed 
budget (Attachment II) against quotations from two of the 
City's Committee on Information Technology (COIT) 
approved Computer Store vendors. One of the Computer 
Store vendors would supply the computer equipment to 
"replace network infrastructure" totaling $98,845 (not 
including Sales Tax) and the other Computer Store 
vendor would supply the computer equipment for "servers 
replacement", "software compliance", and "virus 
protection", totaling $144,503 (not including Sales Tax). 
The balance of $20,076 is for Sales Tax. 

Comments: 1. As previously noted, the Board of Supervisors 

appropriated $500,000 in the Planning Department's FY 
2001-2002 budget for computer equipment, placing 
$263,000 on reserve. From July 1, 2001 to May 3, 2002, 
the Planning Department has spent $237,514.57 on other 
computer equipment representing the balance of the 
unreserved portion of the monies appropriated in the FY 
2001-2002 budget for computer equipment ($500,000 less 
$263,000 on reserve) plus $514.57 which, according to Mr. 
Hogan, has been absorbed in the Planning Department's 
FY 2001-2002 operating budget. Attachment III, provided 
by the Planning Department, lists the computer 
equipment already purchased by the Planning 
Department from Computer Store vendors since July 1, 
2001. 

2. Attachment IV, provided by the Planning Department, 
is a memorandum that explains what the computer 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



equipment is for, why the Planning Department needs the 
computer equipment, and what has not been getting done 
because the Planning Department does not have this 
computer equipment. As stated by the Planning 
Department in the Attachment IV memorandum, "All 
processing of building permit and case filings has been 
stopped. As the public calls and comes in to request 
information, we are forced to send them away without 
answers." This response by the Planning Department is 
illustrative of management deficiencies found in the 
Budget Analyst's forthcoming management audit of the 
Planning Department. If these conditions now exist, the 
Budget Analyst questions why management did not 
prepare contingency plans to enable ongoing processing of 
permits. 

3. Although the Attachment IV memorandum from the 
Planning Department describes the need for their 
computer equipment in general terms, the Budget 
Analyst has not made an independent audit specifically to 
verify the necessity of obtaining the $263,000 in 
additional computer equipment. Furthermore, the Budget 
Analyst has not determined whether such computer 
equipment will specifically address the deficiencies in the 
Planning Department's information technology, as 
identified by the Budget Analyst's Office in our 
forthcoming management audit of the Planning 
Department. 

4. The proposed request for release of reserves was 
received by the Board of Supervisors and assigned to the 
Finance Committee on February 7, 2002. The Budget 
Analyst transmitted its request to the Planning 
Department for information on the subject release of 
reserves on February 22, 2002. The Budget Analyst did 
not begin to receive information in response to our request 
until April 26, 2002, more than two months after our 
initial information request. 

Recommendation: Because the subject $263,000 was placed on reserve 

pending the submission to the Finance Committee of draft 
proposed Permanent Industrial Zoning Controls in the 
South of Market area, Mission District, Showplace Square 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



area and the area near Pacific Bell Park, and, according 
to the Planning Department, these draft permanent 
controls are not complete, and because the Budget 
Analyst has not made an independent audit of the need 
for this specific computer equipment, the Budget Analyst 
considers release of the subject reserved funds to be a 
policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

29 



Fase r~oF~2 




PLANNING DEPARTMENT 



City and Countv of San Francisco • 1660 Mission Street. Suite 500 • San Francisco, California • 94103-2414 



MAIN NUMBER 

(415) 558-6378 



DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PLANNING INFORMATION 
PHONE: 558-641 1 PHONE: 558-6350 PHONE: 55S-6377 



4TH FLOOR 
FAX:558-64;6 



5TH FLOOR 
FAX 558-6409 



MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
FAX 558-5991 



COMMISSION CALENDAR 
INFO 558-64:: 



INTERNET WEB SITE 
WWW.SFGOV.ORG/PLANNINC 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



May 1,2002 

Finance Committee 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Amit Ghosh, Head of Long Range Planning 
San Francisco Planning Department 

Progress Report on Industrial Protection Zones (IPZ) Permanent Controls 



The Interim Industrial Protection Zone Controls (IPZ) expired August 2001. These controls were 
meant to temporarily regulate the use of land in the Eastern Neighborhoods of San Francisco. 

On September 6, 2001 the Planning Commission established a permanent industrial zone in the 
form of a Special Use District in the core of the industrial zones (Resolution 16224). In that 
district, no office or housing use, including live/work is permitted. 

Since October 2001 the Planning Department has been working on the Eastern Neighborhoods 
Community Planning Process. The end goal of this effort is to gather community imput in 
regard to future land use alternative in that part of San Francisco. With this information the 
Department will then draft permanent land use controls for the resat of areas in the IPZ. This 
effort has involved: 

1. Release of report: "Profiles of Community Planning Areas: San Francisco's Eastern 
Neighborhoods" 

2. Series of workshops in SoMa, Mission, Showplace Square-Potrero Hill, Bayview, and 
Visitacion Valley. 

The first workshop in Bayview focused on a view of land use trends. The two 
community workshops in SoMa and the Mission, resulted in the development of goals for 
the community planning process. The third workshop in Showplace Square-Potrero Hill 
will result in a draft land use proposal. The Vistatacion Valley community planning 
workshops were completed in March and resulted in a land use proposal. 

3. Development of a web page to interact with the public and city agencies. 



30 



Page 2 oi T~ 

4. Development of land use proposal for Visitacion Valley. 

5. Implementation of industrial business survey. 

6. Hiring of five (5) staff planners 

In addition, the Better Neighborhood-Central Waterfront planning effort will soon release a land 
use proposal for the area. 



31 



::::-:::: :- ■:==- 



? '=r.-S = ='_ANN IXG DE. : 



i 555SE4ZE 



.=. 



o- 


c* 


C CS 


CI 


Cl' 


'o 


^1 


<B CS 


o 


Oi 


Cl 


Si 


b> Si 


•*- 


en 


l*- 


Bl 


— PI 


c^i 


^ 


B 


r-^ 


r-; cs 


*•• 


krji 


O! 


■» 


<o — 


•f 


en. 


v> 


CM 


1** 


•>-, 


v> 


- 


Cl 


Ol o 


~ 


o 


C: 


Q 


Old 






B 


0> 


cSlcS 


oi 


Oi 


B" 


Bl 




05 


IS 


l>. 


^ 


C)|,V. 


10 


K. 


c- 


— 






*." 


tfl 


C\J 






*• 



. o 

■5? Ia - 

S 53 



•rsj 


*> v>\ 






;- 


U. 


C) 


Ui 




H 


1 


C\J 


■^ 


CVi 




Ql 


O 


^ 


'-■> 


T^ 


r>i 












:■ 


^r 



— - U"l n ** 



> 


' 


t 








Q 


*- 


Cl 






Q 




l/J 




a 


c^ 


Cl 


o 


'. 


Q 


«1 


>n 


t-i 


<o 


is 


tc 










<n 




























'0 




c 




U 


O 



Bl 


- 






.g 


* 





& 








-. 


c- 


c> 




-T 


o 


Cl 




(\l 














V 


Ij 


- 


■: 



Ol 

ifl'l 
(751 



o o 



ill 

§| s 

i-Ss 



™ ■£ 



c^ 


= 


■5 








3 


a. 


c 










5 




5 


•2 

a. 












n 


V) 


2 


> 


O 



Q (U 

is, 

5 u 

to — 
(a Oi 



a 2 9 

"B 'e- ra 
£ *"§ 

s JB ^ 



IS 



c K ^ 

O Qj 'si 



** 9 

ifi Q. 2 



.5 ^ 



■3 S^ 



5 °S 

CD T3 -^ 






ci i; 
»1 



^ . <n 

o 1 "s a 



Q CM] CN 

* •€! ^ 

S O; ^1 

' *">* Cl m 

*• r '' s 









■a ii - — — — ~ 
** ^ c 'a ^ 'a « 

ng 2- : -^i-5r- O' q 5' - 

cj £• -s «; m b « §: .>a' ai s s 

<«, — 

-■ — — >3- IO- C\|; v. 



r 3 JS 



la ? s " 



* -2 

a, > 



a 5 



"5 S s 
t/j 



S S "i c e 
•2 g. J | 



I ! 






a -rr * - 



! S -a - 
3 "B N 

!"£ B >;" 

! cj ^ o 

• ■S " 



n S p 



■= rS - c o 



r? ? S 






^: s o o 



a it | 






£ 6 « 
Bl O C 






O — o •£ 



c. a 

£ £ 1 s 



:-b3: 



! Ij'g 

bi c ai 
a <cio 



I 1 



-2 w T; 

-= in ii 

-. 6) w 

^ ^ f^ 

^r '- ni 



°8 



a — e 



? ? S 



ri "5 
2 ? 



c * 

91 C 



eg SiiJ 



^ ^ ; i. 5J S !; "^* » ^ Q-' 



£ 5<ccS«i: 



21 5 

£2 



32 



C E-C = -2 DC 2 34:09pm 



: -=x-SF5LANMNS DE=T 



■.iziiiiill 



Attachment III 



City Planning Computer Equipment Budget Purchased since July 1, 2001 to May 3, 2002 



OTY 



Item Descrip tion 



Price per Unit 



Total 



1 5-pack natural keyboard 

HP Netserver Server lor 30 Van Ness 

1 HP Sura store backup 

1 Hard drive 36.7 GB 

50 Symantec Ghost software 

2 PUSQL Developer 

7 US3 switch modular 4 ports 

1 Arc Univ client agent for NT/W2k 

1 VJebtech - revolutionary CSS and DHTML 
7 Norton Ghost 2002 for 98/NT4AA/2k 

2 Upgrade Coldfusion 4.5 Ultradev 4 studio 
2 Fireworks 4 for 95/981 nT/V\l 2k 

7 Imagemate smartmedia USB Reader 

1 Upgrade Omnipage pro 11.0 

1 2000 sheet input tray for Laserjet 8000 printer 

1 SanDisk Smartmedia Imagemate USB port 

1 SanDisk CompactFlash Imagemate USB pon 

7 Norton Systemworks Professional 2001 

1 Skillbuilding with Cold Fusion 

1 Panitionmagic 6.0 

1 Base Magnitude - Storage Area Network 

13 73 GB Hard Drive 

1 REDI copy software - 7 server license 

1 REDl storage manager - 7 server license 

Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred voice activated software 

1 Digitally Enhanced USB Speech headset 

1 Monitors 

20 HP X1 100 worksta tions 

1 Coldfusion server 5.0 Enterprise software 

20 HP XI 000 workstations 

7 Kodak DC4800 digital camara 

1 Robohelp office 2002 

1 Highway Capacity Manual 





SI 75.00 


S 175.00 




S33.539.00 


$31,639.00 




SI 3,250.00 


$13,250.00 




S400.00 


S400.00 




S31.00 


SI. 550.00 




S350.00 


$700.00 




S45.00 


S45.00 




$140.00 


SI 40.00 




SI 50.00 


SI 50.00 




S100.00 


SI 00.00 




$475.00 


$950.00 




SI 50.00 


S300.00 




S50.00 


S50.00 




$120.00 


$120.00 




S920.00 


$920.00 




S50.00 


S50.00 




S50.00 


$50.00 




$125.00 


S 125.00 




S3S0.00 


$360.00 




S70.00 


S70.00 




$83,184.00 


539,950.00 




$2,300.00 


$29,900.00 




S7.273.00 


S7.273.00 




$6,061.00 


$6,061.00 




$240.00 


$240.00 




S75.00 


S75.00 




$325.00 


S3. 250.00 




SI, 912.50 


S38.250.00 




$6,925.00 


$5,925.00 




$1,735.00 


$34,700.00 




S750.00 


$750.00 




$921.00 


$921.00 




$149.00 


$149.00 




Sub-T::a! 


$219,413.00 


Sa'es 


Tax @3.25% 


S1S.101.57 


Tota; 




S237.514.57 



G:\Buogen Equipment 5uaget0T02.xls 



Page i ct I 

33 



S/6/20O24.S6 -'■' 



: : -:--i::i D9:5lam 



rcm-SrPLANNING DEPT, 



U15553E42E 



Attachment IV 
Page I of 2 



^f5^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

lJ£g^zf^ M City and County of San Francisco • 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 • 



San Francisco, California • 94103-2-114 



Main nx'MDER 
(415) 55S-6378 



DIRECTOR'S Ol-FICE 
PHONE- 55E-6.J1 1 



4TH FLOOR 



zom:nc admb»"S7Sator 
PHONE, sa-ejfl 



PLANNWC INFORMATION 
?HONS: S5S-637? 

MAJOR SNVIRONMENTaL. 
FAX. 5SS-S99) 



COMMISSION CaLIv'uaI! 



INTERNET '.VU75 SITE 
-"W SFGOV.OKC'Pl.ANN'thll 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 



May S, 2002 

Finance Committee 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

Information Services Unit 

San Francisco Planning Department 

FY 2001-02 Original Plan for Upgrade of Planning Departmet 
Computer Equipment and Network 



BACKGROUND 

The Planning Department has not in its recent set of approved budgets had an ongoing annua] 
base budget allocation for computer replacement, upgrades, or maintenance. In fact, The 
Planning Department's computer equipment budget has been under-funded since fiscal year 
1997- C J8. Last year, FY 2000-2001, the Department received only $70,000 for computer 
equipment. While appreciated, it is clear to everyone at the Department that this level of funding 
is woefully inadequate. As a result, the Department does not have enough computers capable of 
running the latest software programs needed by planning staff to adequately review cases and 
produce analyses and this fact has lead to a breakdown in the Department's overall computer 
network. This breakdown has hampered the ability of staff to process cases in a timely manner. 
The Department's simple unmet goal is to provide planning staff with all the in-house tools they 
need to create reports and conduct analyses required for application review. 

Additionally, over the last three fiscal years the Department's size has increased substantially, an 
off-site satellite office has been added, and the complexity of user demands has increased such 
that it is difficult to effectively serve the public with the existing hardware and software. Again 
it must be mentioned that these events have all occurred while the Department technology budget 
has noi grown respectively. Funds from the approved FY 2001-02 equipment allocation were to 
be used to cover the cost of implementing the necessary network upgrades to provide for the 
Department's growing operations and use of data equipment. 

New computer equipment, network upgrades, customize applications, software licenses and 
increased maintenance are particularly important to providing staff and the public with the most 



r\ u l. a. *. 



35-CS-2002 0=:52«n Fron-SFPLAHHIKC 0E?T, tUl-sseMtt Page 2 ot Z 



comprehensive and timely information on development issues, thus helping to insure their input 
into [he planning process and development within their neighborhoods. The Department's 
computer network serves the Public Information Center, where the public, neighborhood groups, 
community agencies, legislators and other Departments have immediate access to all land use 
records, planning policies and land use studies. 



STATUS 

The Department needs funds to provide adequate computers to our staff. The information 
technology industry standard calls for complete replacement of hardware components within a 
three-year period. However because of the need to use existing resources to cover other 
operating expenses, the Department has lagged well behind this standard. The Department's 
total equipment appropriation approved in August of 2001 was to primarily be used to begin 
implementation of this three-year replacement system and the licensing required by 
manufactures. Because a number of staff have inadequate PCs, it has become more difficult for 
the public and project sponsors to have access to vital information about their neighborhoods and 
their projects. 

With a portion of the budget release of S263,000, the Department can immediately replace the 
current downed computer network infrastructure. Currently, access to this system ranges from 
intermittent to non-existent depending on network status. Making needed improvements will 
allow the department to be able to provide service to the public, who will benefit by having 
access to pending applications, planning regulations and other information. 

Without the remaining $263,000 of our budget appropriation, the technology support that the 
Department originally envisioned for FY 2001-02 and the support for the above services 
mentioned have all but disappeared in the face of recent network breakdowns brought on by 
deferred maintenance. All processing of building permit and case filings has been swpped . As 
the public calls and comes in to request information, we are forced to send them away without 
answers. And in some cases staff has been forced to typewrite memorandums and handwrite 
reports. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 02-0473 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Budget: 



Airport Commission 

Hearing to request the release of reserved funds, San 
Francisco International Airport (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 
Budget), in the amount of $54,387,447, as partial 
reimbursements for funds already expended on all 
contracts related to the development of data to be used in 
the preparation of the required Environmental Impact 
Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
documents for the proposed runway project. 

$54,387,447 

Passenger Facility Charge revenues (PFCl). The Federal 
Aviation Administration authorized a PFCl charge in the 
amount of $4.50 per passenger, for the San Francisco 
Airport on July 27, 2001. The Airport began collecting 
PFCl revenues on October 1, 2001. 

A summary of (a) the nine Airport contracts and (b) the 
Airport staffing expenditures, included in the total 
requested amount of $54,387,447, is as follows: 

URS Planning Feasibility Study $1,856,799 

HNTB Airspace Planning 5,856,857 

HMMH Noise Analysis 212,848 

URS Environmental 11,149,353 

Environmental Science Associates 771,806 

California Academy of Sciences 145,047 

Jones and Stokes Mitigation Planning 2,959,210 
Airfield Development Engineering 

Consultants (ADEC) 26,837,396 

Blue Ribbon Panel Concepts 1,250,000 

Planning Staff 533,347 

Environmental Staff 901,170 

Marine Structures Staff 818,368 

Pavement and Utilities Staff 1.095.246 

Total $54,387,447 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. In order to prepare a report on the requested release of 

reserved funds, the Budget Analyst requested the 
following information: 

• budget details for the requested release of reserved 
funds, including contractor hours and hourly rates for 
each contract amount and budget details for in-house 
Airport personnel expenditures; 

• descriptions for each contract or project included in the 
requested release of reserved funds; • 

• total contract costs for each contract; 

• explanation of the selection process for each 
contractor; and 

• a memorandum explaining eligible projects and/or 
costs to be reimbursed with Passenger Facility Charge 
revenue. 

2. The Airport has not provided the Budget Analyst with 
the following requested items: 

• budget details that reconcile to the amounts for the 
contracts included in the requested release of reserved 
funds; 

• budget details for Airport personnel expenditures that 
reconcile to the amounts included in the requested 
release of reserved funds; 

• descriptions of each contract or project included in the 
requested release of reserved funds; 

• explanation of the selection process for each 
contractor; and 

• a memorandum explaining eligible projects and/or 
costs to be reimbursed with Passenger Facility Charge 
revenue. 

3. Mr. Leo Fermin of the Airport reports that the Airport 
did not receive prior approval of the Board of Supervisors 
for the contracts with URS Environmental and Airfield 
Development Engineering Consultants (ADEC). As noted 
in the Budget section of this report each of these contracts 
is over $10 million. Ms. Mara Rosales, General Counsel 
for the Airport, states that the City Attorney's Office has 
previously determined that the Airport is not required to 
obtain prior approval from the Board of Supervisors for 
contracts over $10 million if the contracts are for 
architectural and engineering services. Ms. Rosales states 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



that the Airport has followed this advice throughout the 
implementation of the Master Plan and did not receive 
Board of Supervisors approval for such architectural and 
engineering services contracts for the construction of the 
new International Terminal or for the development of 
data for the EIR and EIS documents for the Runway 
Reconfiguration project. Ms. Rosales further states that 
the City Attorney's Office does not have a written opinion 
on this matter. 

4. The Budget Analyst notes that Charter Section 9.118 
(b) states that: 

Unless otherwise provided for in this Charter, and 
with the exception of construction contracts entered 
into by the City and County, any other contracts or 
agreements entered into by a department, board or 
commission having a term in excess of ten years, or 
requiring anticipated expenditures by the City and 
County of ten million dollars, or the modification or 
amendments to such contract or agreement having 
an impact of more than $500,000 shall be subject to 
approval of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. 

This Charter Section does not state that architectural and 
engineering services contracts are construction contracts. 

5. Mr. Fermin states that all of the nine contractors 
listed in the Budget section of this report were selected 
through a Request for Qualifications process and were 
awarded contracts in accordance with City and Airport 
Policies and Procedures for selecting contractors. 
However, Mr. Fermin reports that the Airport is unable at 
this time to provide the Budget Analyst with specific 
information on the contractor selection process for each of 
the nine contracts, including the number of bids and/or 
proposals received, the bid or proposal amounts, the 
criteria for selection, and the ranking of the competing 
firms. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Continue the item to the Call of the Chair, pending 

submission to the Board of Supervisors of the additional 
information requested from the Airport by the Budget 
Analyst. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 01-2027 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Airport Commission 

Ordinance appropriating $244,757,735 of Passenger 
Facility Charge (PFC2) revenue to fund the cost of the 
principal and interest on revenue bonds issued for certain 
eligible costs associated with the development of the new 
international terminal complex, and the development and 
implementation of the precision runway monitoring 
system at the Airport Commission, placing 5244,757,735 
on reserve pending approval by the Federal Aviation 
Administration of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2). 

$244,757,735 

Passenger Facility Charge revenues (PFC2). The Federal 
Aviation Administration authorized a PFC2 charge in the 
amount of $4.50 per passenger, for the San Francisco 
Airport on March 29, 2002. The Airport will begin 
collecting PFC2 revenues on June 2, 2003. 



Comments: 



1. In order to prepare a report on the requested 
appropriation of funds, the Budget Analyst requested that 
the Airport provide the following information: 

• annual revenue projections for the Passenger Facility 
Charge; 

• a memorandum explaining eligible projects and/or 
costs to be reimbursed with Passenger Facility Charge 
revenue; 

• a description of the precision runway monitoring 
system project; 

• an explanation of why the Airport does not want PFC2 
revenues placed on reserve as required by this 
proposed ordinance; 

• a memorandum with specific information on the 
revenue bonds used to finance the projects eligible to 
be repaid with PFC2 revenue; 

• the date that the Federal Aviation Administration 
authorized a PFC2 chaige in the amount of $4.50 per 
passenger for the San Francisco Airport; and 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Ma) 7 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

• information on when the projects with costs eligible to 
be reimbursed by PFC2 revenues were approved by 
the Board of Supervisors. 

2. The .Airport has not provided the Budget .Analyst with 
the following requested items: 

• a memorandum explaining eligible projects and/or 
costs to be reimbursed with Passenger Facility Charge 
revenue; and 

• a memorandum with specific information on the 
revenue bonds used to finance the projects eligible to 
be repaid with PFC2 revenue. 

3. According to Mr. Leo Fermin of the Airport, the 
Airport is preparing an Amendment of the Whole that (1) 
would reduce the requested appropriation of PFC2 
revenue by approximately $22,000,000 to reflect the non- 
eligibility of the precision runway monitoring system 
project, and (2) remove the language to put PFC2 
revenues on reserve pending approval by the Federal 
Aviation Administration of the PFC2 program since, 
subsequent to the reserve language, the PFC2 program 
was approved by the FAA on March 29, 2002. 

4. Because PFC2 revenues would not begin to be 
collected until June 2, 2003, it is unclear why these future 
revenues need to be appropriated at this time. 

Recommendation: Continue the item to the Call of the Chair, pending 

submission to the Board of Supervisors of the additional 
information requested from the Airport by the Budget 
Analvst. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

hi 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 8 - File 02-0490 
Departments: 

Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds 
for Phase I: 



Source of Funds 
for Phase II: 



Description: 



Recreation and Park (RPD) 
Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance authorizing the Recreation and Park 
Department to (a) negotiate and enter into a joint sole- 
source contract with Mr. Lucas Verbij of Hoogmade/BV, 
the Netherlands, and Mr. Mark De Jong of Bloemendal 
Construction Company, San Francisco, for restoration of 
the South (Murphy) Windmill in Golden Gate Park and 
(b) accept a $300,000 gift from the Campaign to Save the 
Golden Gate Park Windmills. 

$ 800,000 for Phase I restoration project costs 
S3. 081.000 for Phase II restoration project costs 
$3,881,000 for total restoration project costs 



A gift from the Campaign to Save the Golden Gate Park 
Windmills of $300,000, and State Proposition 12 Grant 
Funds of $500,000. 



A pending gift from the Campaign to Save the Golden 
Gate Park Windmills of $3,081,000 which will be the 
subject of future legislation (see Comment No. 4). 

According to Ms. Kathryn How of RPD, the South 
(Murphy) Windmill, City Landmark No. 210, was built in 
1905 at the west end of Golden Gate Park with donated 
funds from banker Samuel Murphy. Mr. Lucas Verbij of 
Hoogmade/BV, a fourth generation Dutch windmill design 
and construction expert whose company is based in the 
Netherlands, performed an extensive study of the 
Windmill in 1993 and concluded that immediate attention 
was required to rescue and restore the Windmill. 

According to Ms. How, the South Windmill restoration 

project has been divided into two phases. Phase I would 

restore the windmill cap (the structure's dome), sails, and 

mechanism at an estimated cost of $800,000. Phase II 

would restore the windmill base and provide for seismic 

upgrades at an estimated cost of $3,081,000. Therefore, 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the total estimated restoration project costs are 
S3, 881, 000. 

The proposed ordinance authorizes RPD to accept and 
expend a gift of $300,000 from the Campaign to Save the 
Golden Gate Park Windmills, a non-profit organization 
dedicated to restoring the windmills located at the 
historic west end of Golden Gate Park and their environs. 
The subject gift would fund a portion of the total Phase I 
restoration project costs of $800,000. 

The proposed ordinance would also authorize RPD to 
negotiate and enter into a joint sole-source contract with 
Mr. Verbij of Hoogmade/BV, the Netherlands, and Mr. 
Mark De Jong of Bloemendal Construction Company, San 
Francisco. Attachment I, provided by RPD, explains why 
the Department considers Mr. Verbij and Mr. De Jong to 
be uniquely qualified to perform Phases I and II of this 
restoration project under a joint sole-source contract. 
Attachment II, provided by RPD, provides additional 
information regarding this project. 

Phase I Budget: The budget for Phase I of the proposed restoration of the 

Windmill, as determined by RPD, is as follows: 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



South (Murphv) Windmill Restoration 


- Phase I 




Contractual Construction Costs (Hoogmade/BV, the 






Netherlands, and Bloemendal Construction Company, 








San Francisco) 








Site Preparation 




$8,000 




Temporary Support 




43,000 




Lift-off of Cap 




95,000 




Restoration of Cap, Sails, and Mechanism in the Netherlands 




450,000 




Insurance 




10,000 




Contingency 




59.600 




Subtotal Contractual Construction 


Costs: 




$665,600 


In-house Costs 








DPW Project Management (approximately 








0.05 FTE, 5504 Project Manager) 




24,400 




DPW Planning 




8,535 




DPW Design 




91,465 




DPW Construction Admin (approximately 








0.11 FTE, 6333 Sr. Building Inspector) 




10.000 




Subtotal In-house 


Costs: 




134.400 


TOTAL: 






$800,000 



Attachment III, provided by RPD, 
budget explanations. 



contains supporting 



Comments: 



1. According to Ms. How, the restoration of the Windmill 
will be divided into two phases. Phase I will, include 
removal, repair, and reinstallation of the windmill cap, 
sails, and mechanism. Phase I of the project is expected 
to take at least ten months, with work beginning on June 
6, 2002 and completion planned for April 4, 2003. Phase I 
will cost an estimated $800,000 (approximately 20.6 
percent of the total estimated restoration project costs of 
$3,881,000), which would be funded by the $300,000 
subject gift and $500,000 in grant funding (State 
Proposition 12) previously appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors in RPD's FY 2000-2001 budget. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. As explained in Attachment II, Ms. How advises that 
State Proposition 12 funds are grant funds from the State 
2000 Bond Act for the Renovation and Rehabilitation of 
Golden Gate Park. The Board of Supervisors authorized 
RPD to apply, accept, and expend $13,524,000 in those 
State grant funds on September 29, 2000. The $500,000 
budget for the Windmill was part of the RPD grant 
application for State Proposition 12 funds which the State 
finally approved in September of 2001. 

3. According to Ms. How, Phase II will include seismic 
upgrade, repair and restoration of the base of the 
Windmill. According to Ms. How, Phase II will cost 
approximately $3,081,000 (approximately 79.4 percent of 
the estimated total project costs) and all Phase II funding 
is expected to be provided by donations from the 
Campaign to Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills. As of 
the writing of this report, the Phase II start and 
completion dates have not been established (see Comment 
No. 4). 

4. As stated in Attachment II, Ms. How advises that the 
fund raising efforts by the Campaign to Save the Golden 
Gate Park Windmills for Phase II of the Windmill 
restoration have raised $200,000 to date. This leaves a 
balance of $2,881,000 yet to be raised. According to Ms. 
How, the Campaign to Save the Golden Gate Park 
Windmills has given a verbal commitment to raise the 
private funds necessary to restore the Windmill's base. 
Ms. How states that the Recreation and Park Commission 
will authorize Phase II to proceed only after full funding 
for Phase II becomes available. The total estimated 
Phase II costs uf $3,081,000 would be subject to future 
legislation for the Board of Supervisors to authorize the 
RPD to accept the Phase II gift funds from the Campaign 
to Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills. 

5. According to Ms. How, once the Windmill's cap, sails, 
and mechanism have been removed for restoration, it is 
anticipated that the rest of the Windmill structure will be 
disassembled and stored securely near the Windmill site, 
pending the availability of Phase II funding. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



6. Ms. How states in Attachment II that the RPD's 
ongoing operational and maintenance costs associated 
with the restored Windmill will not change (a 0.50 FTE 
7205 Chief Stationary Engineer m RPD at a maximum 
FY 2001-02 annual salary and benefits cost of $43,265, 
plus materials and supplies). These costs will continue to 
be funded from RPD's regular General Fund allocation for 
maintenance, according to Ms. How. 

7. The Budget Analyst notes that approval of the 
proposed ordinance would authorize RPD to proceed with 
the restoration of the Windmill cap (Phase I) before (a) 
$2,881,000 in additional private funding for restoration of 
the Windmill base (Phase II), or approximately 93.5 
percent of the total estimated Phase II costs of 
$3,081,000, had been fully secured by the Campaign to 
Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills, and (b) the Board 
of Supervisors has authorized acceptance of the gift for 
Phase II of the restoration project. Nevertheless, Ms. 
How states that RPD would like to help the Campaign to 
Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills' fund raising 
efforts by showing some progress. Further, Ms. How 
states that RPD is confident that the Campaign to Save 
the Golden Gate Park Windmills can raise the additional 
private funds needed for Phase II of the restoration 
project. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
46 



rt.ttacn.ment l 



ty and County of San Francisco 



Recreation and Park Department 




MEMORANDUM 

To: Brian Stott 

Budget Analyst's Office 

1390 Market Street, Suite #1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415) 554-7642 voice/252-0461 fax 

From: Kathryn How 

Recreation & Park Department 
5 th FL, 30 Van Ness 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 581-2553 voice/581-2540 fax 

Subject: Ordinance for South(Murphy) Windmill Restoration 
Sole Source Contract 



Date: 



April 22, 2002 



Provided below is an explanation about why the Recreation and Park Department is requesting to 
enter into a sole-source agreement for the restoration of the South (Murphy) Windmill. 

The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, in collaboration with San Francisco Beautiful 
and the Campaign to Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills, has sought-out windmill restoration 
experts around the world who would have the experience and expertise to restore the South 
(Murphy) Windmill. The Recreation and Park Department has determined that Lucas Verbij, of 
Hoogmade/BV Windmill Construction and Restoration of the Netherlands, is uniquely qualified to 
perform the restoration work of the cap, sails and mechanism of the South Windmill. Mr. Verbij is a 
4 tr| generation Dutch windmills design and construction expert whose family has been constructing, 
restoring and maintaining windmills since 1868. Mr. Verbij's company, Hoogmade/BV, has the 
largest remaining windmill restoration shop in the world. Mr. Verbij has also become personally 
familiar with the South (Murphy) Windmill: In 1993, he prepared an extensive study and 
recommended then that immediate attention be given to the structure. 

The Recreation and Park Department has also determined that Mark De Jong of Bloemendal 
Construction Company of San Francisco is uniquely qualified to perform the restoration of the base of 
the South Windmill. Mr. De Jong is a Dutch engineer with a family restoration and construction 
business in Holland and with experience in Dutch landmark restoration work. Mr. De Jong is also a 
San Francisco resident who has taken a personal interest in restoration of the base of the South 
Windmill. Since 1997, Mr. De Jong has both volunteered his time and has worked with the 
Campaign to Save the Golden Gate Park Windmills to clean, study and secure the unique interior 
structure of the South Windmill. 



c: Rec Park - G. Hoy, Program Manager 
City Attorney - S. Bregman, M. Morley 
DPW - L. Ch'en, Project Manager 

>" -aren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

>' Stanyan Street 

5 Francisco, CA 94117-1898 



Phone: (415)831-2779 
Fax: (415)831-2096 



47 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment jl 
Page I of 2 

Recreation and Park Department 




MEMORANDUM 

To: Brian Stott/Alan Gibson 
Budget Analyst's Office 
1390 Market Street, Suite #1025 
San Francisco, CA94102 
(415) 554-7642 voice/252-0461 fax 

From: Kathryn How 

Recreation & Park Department 
5 th Fl., 30 Van Ness 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 581-2553 voice/581-2540 fax 

Subject: Ordinance for South(Murphy) Windmill Restoration 

Response to Additional Questions of 5/1/02 and 5/6/02 

Date: May 7, 2002 



1 . Status of fund raising efforts for Phase II (previously stated as Phase IB, 
restoration of the base) of the project: Currently, private funds of approximately 
$200,000 have been pledged for Phase II. The contract agreement with the contractor 
will be a single contract for Phase I and Phase II, with language which authorizes only 
Phase I (the amount of work for which there is funding available). After full funding for 
Phase II becomes available, the authorization to proceed with Phase II will come from the 
Recreation and Park Commission. 

2. Funding of the ongoing operational and maintenance cost associated with the 
upkeep of the South (Murphy) Windmill: Funding for maintenance will not change, 
and is from Recreation and Park's General Fund allocation. 



4. 



Prop. 12 Funding: The authorization for the Recreation and Park Department to apply, 
accept and expend a $1 3,524,00 grant from the State 2000 Bond Act for the Renovation 
and Rehabilitation of Golden Gate Park came from the Board of Supervisors through 
Res. No. 1006-00, dated 9/29/00. The $500,000 for South (Murphy) Windmill was in the 
grant application signed by the Recreation and Park Department General Manager, 
Elizabeth Goldstein. This application was submitted Jan. 8, 2001 . The State executed a 
contract with the City in September of 2001 . 

Subcontractors: It is anticipated that there may be one or several subcontractors; 
however, the contract will be with the prime contractor. The prime contractor must meet 
HRC goals, as with other City contracts with prime contractors doing construction work. 



5. Relationship between Phase I and Phase II: After the top "cap" is removed, the base 
will likely be disassembled (due to safety concerns), and parts stored securely near the 

McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

501 Stanyan Street Phone: (415) 831-2779 

San Francisco, CA 94117-1898 Fax: (415)831-2096 

48 



n. i_ i_ci_ liuicii >_ xx 

Page 2 ot 2 
South (Murphy) Windmill, 5/7/02 p. 2 



site. Restoration of the "cap" is anticipated to be completed in March 2003 (per 4/9/02 
memo to you), and shipped back the following month. If the Campaign does not raise the 
funding necessary to restore the base in a timely manner, the General Manager and the 
Recreation and Park Commission must consider delaying shipping, or storage of the cap 
within Rec Park property. 

6. Funding for maintenance: Technically, funding for maintenance should not change. 
Maintenance needs of a very dilapidated structure are not much less than the 
maintenance needs of a restored structure open to tourists, in fact, quite a bit of time and 
effort is required now to secure or remove loose parts from the dilapidated structure. 
Once the windmill is restored, tourists will still only be looking at the outside of the 
windmill. Whether tourists will be allowed inside or not, and whether they will remain on 
the ground, or be allowed to go up into the tower has not been decided. 

7. General fund amount currently spent each year on the windmill's maintenance: 

Current maintenance for the windmill is estimated to require one Recreation and Park 
staff person (Chief Stationary Engineer) half time annually, and materials and supplies. 

8. Status of fund raising efforts for Phase II (restoration of the base) of the project: 

As stated above in item 1 , private funds of approximately $200,000 have been pledged 
for Phase II. After full funding for Phase II becomes available, the authorization to 
proceed with Phase II will be requested from the Recreation and Park Commission. 

9. Assurances for full Phase II funding from private sources: All funding from private 
sources would be funneled through the Campaign to Save the Windmills. At this point in 
time, the Campaign has given a verbal commitment to raise the private funds necessary 
to restore the base. 

c: Rec Park - G. Hoy, Program Manager 
City Attorney - S. Bregman, M. Morley 
DPW - L. Ch'en, Project Manager 



49 



City and County of San Francisco 



Page 1 of 2 

Recreation and Park Department 




MEMORANDUM 



To: 



From: 



Brian Stott 

Budget Analyst's Office 

1390 Market Street, Suite #1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415) 554-7642 voice/252-0461 fax 

Kathryn How 

Recreation & Park Department 

5 th Fl., 30 Van Ness 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415) 581-2553 voice/581-2540 fax 



Subject: Ordinance for South(Murphy) Windmill Restoration 
Budget Detail: Description of Subcategories 

Date: April 22, 2002 

Construction ($665,600) 

Site Preparation: $8,000 

Install portable toilet (for construction workers) 

Prepare grade (ground) in front of windmill for crane 

Prune tress where needed 

Fence off job site 

Repair existing entry doors 

Rent generator 

Temporary support: $43,000 

Install scaffolding inside 
Engineering design for temporary support 
Install shoring to wooden tower 
Assist scaffolding company 

Lifting off dome: $95,000 

Verbij Hoogmade assist with lift off 

Remove and save copper roof 

Crane company lift off 

Cutting steel to allow shipping in container 

Cover wooden tower 

Ship dome to Holland 

Clean up site 



Restoration of dome and sails: $450,000 

Rebuild and restore dome, build sails 



McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

501 Stanyan Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117-1898 



Phone: (415)831-2779 
Fax: (415)831-2096 



50 



Attacn-enr il l 
Page 2 of 2 



Ship dome to San Francisco 

Install dome and sails 

Insurance for dome: S1 0,000 

(new dome if lost) 

Contingency: $59,600 

Unforeseen needs for Phase I 

Project Control ($134,400) 

Project management: $24,400 

Prepare project plan, manage consultant selection process, conceptual design, 
construction documents, permit documents, reviews, approvals; and obtain permits. 
Handle bid and award process, provide project coordination, construction oversight, 
and handle close out of contract. 
City staff: 5504 Project Manager S110.35/hrx 221 hrs. 

Planning: $8,535 

Regulatory agencies: Obtain Categoric Exemption from City Planning, obtain 
Certificate of Appropriateness from Landmarks Board (document sets the conditions 
for restoration for this City Landmark), obtain Department of Building Inspection 
review, including accessibility review. 

Site investigation: Survey and recommendation by geotechnical engineer, materials 
testing, structural engineer review, historic survey and documentation 
Evaluation: Historic Structure Report, evaluation of existing materials 

Design: $91,465 

Project set-up and administration per project plan; onsite orientation; review existing 
base conditions and existing conditions survey report, other documentation and 
drawings; support structural engineer with shoring design. 

Award (done as part of project management tasks): 

Review bid for compliance to contract requirements (including Administrative Code 
requirements), insurance requirements, and HRC goals. Provide for independent 
cost review. Negotiate fees. Recommend and process award documents, (cost 
included in project management sub category) 

Construction administration: $10,000 

Oversight and monitoring of contractor's construction activities on a daily basis. Handle 
progress payments to the contractor. 
City staff: $100.38/hrx 100 hours 

Regulatory agencies review and permits: Costs are included in the planning tasks. 



Rec Park - G. Hoy, Program Manager 
City Attorney - S. Bregman, M. Morley 
DPW - L. Ch'en, Project Manager 



51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 02-0635 



Departments: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



Term of Lease: 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Increase 

to the Base Rent: 



Right of Renewal: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of the entire building, 
and 29 parking spaces located at 945 Bryant Street for the 
Department of Human Services. 

945 Bryant Street between 7 th Street and 8 th Street. 

To consolidate the Family Assessment Program into one 
location, where the DHS, Department of Public Health 
(DPH), Police Department, District Attorney's Office, and 
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) will offer 
services to families and "at risk" children in the child 
welfare system. 

945 Bryant Street, Limited Liability Company 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
DHS. 

Ten-years. Anticipated commencement date is 45 days 
after approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

40,410 square feet at a base monthly rate of $79,136.25, or 
approximately $1.96 per square foot per month, totaling 
$949,635 per year, or $23.50 per square foot annually. 

The base monthly rent is subject to a one-time Consumer 
Price Index (CPI) adjustment for the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Area at the start of the sixth year of the 
proposed 10 year lease, of no less than 15 percent and no 
more than 35 percent. No other CPI adjustments are to be 
made according to Ms. Claudine Venegas of the RED, to the 
proposed lease rents. 

Six options of five years each to extend the term of the 
lease, or a total of up to 30 additional years. Each five year 
option to extend would increase the base rent to 95 percent 
of the then fair market value, as determined by an 
independent appraiser retained by both parties, if a fair 
market value cannot be negotiated, for space of comparable 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities: 



size, age, quality, and location within the South of Market 
area of the City. According to Ms. Venegas, no CPI 
adjustments to the rent are to be made under the six option 
periods. 

To be paid by the City at an estimated annual cost of 
$58,595 (approximately $4,883 per month). 



Janitorial Services: To be provided by the City at an estimated annual cost of 

$68,697 (approximately $5,725 per month). 
Total Estimated 
First Year Cost 
of Lease: $1,076,927 ($949,635 plus $58,595 plus $68,697) 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



Source of Funds: 



According to Ms. Venegas, the landlord would be required 
to pay for tenant improvements to the premises, not to 
exceed $140,000. Tenant improvements would include 
costs for permits and approvals, government fees, licenses, 
inspections, construction, and building improvements. 
According to Ms. Venegas, the principal tenant 
improvement to be made will be the reconfiguration of 
existing workstations within the subject facility, which 
according to Ms. Venegas will be completed before the 
commencement of the lease. 

As described in the memorandum, provided by Mr. Phil 
Arnold of DHS (Attachment I), payments for the base rent 
would be funded by 47 percent State and Federal revenues, 
and 53 percent of the base rent would be funded by General 
Fund monies, subject to appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors in the DHS annual budget. According 
to Mr. Arnold, since the families and children utilizing the 
Family Assessment Center will be DHS clients, DHS has 
agreed to fund the $79,136.25 monthly, or $949,635 annual 
rent cost, as well as the $10,608 monthly, or $127,292 
($58,595 plus $68,697) annual janitorial and utilities cost, 
for a total cost to DHS of $89,744 monthly, or $1,076,927 
annually. Of this annual cost, 47 percent would be paid 
from State and Federal funds or $506,156, and 53 percent, 
or $570,771, would be paid by the City's General Fund. 

Mr. Arnold states that the cost of the proposed lease for the 
remainder of Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is estimated to total 
approximately $89,744.25, for the month of June 2002 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Ma}' 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

including the cost for the base rent of $79,136.25 plus one 
month's utilities and janitorial costs of $10,608. Mr. Arnold 
advises that this one-month cost is available in the DHS FY 
2001-2002 budget. Subsequent rent payments and related 
costs would be subject to appropriation approval bj r the 
Board of Supervisors in the DHS budget. Further, Mr. 
Arnold states in Attachment I, "The importance of this 
program is underscored by the fact that DHS has included 
the General Funds costs of the lease in the FY 2002-2003 
baseline budget, in a year when General Fund support for 
DHS has been reduced by $7.0 million." 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize DHS to enter into 

a new ten year lease for 40,410 square feet of space, which 
includes the entire building at 945 Bryant Street, 
consisting of three floors, or approximately 13,470 square 
feet per floor. Included on the premises in addition to the 
40,410 square feet of space are 29 off-street parking spaces. 
According to Ms. Janice Anderson-Santos of DHS, the 
facility would be used to house DHS's multi-service Family 
Assessment Center, at one location in order to provide 
services to families and children that are entering or are at 
risk of entering the child welfare system. Of the 40,410 
square feet of space, the subject facility will provide 18,750 
square feet or 275 square feet per City employee of office 
space for 68 employees, all of whom would be relocated 
from other locations (see table below). An additional 15,410 
square feet of space would be used for a reception area, 
child play area, space for supervised visits, a dormitory, 
training and conference rooms, secure storage and a Multi- 
Disciplinary Interview Center for abused children. 

The balance of 6,250 square feet (40,410 less 18,750 less 
15,410) is surplus to the Department's needs (see Comment 
No. 5). 

According to Mr. Arnold, the services to be offered at the 
Family Assessment Center include intake screening, needs 
assessment, counseling, overnight facilities, family 
visitation, sexual trauma investigation, public health 
screening and multi-disciplinary interview facilities. 

As described in Attachment I, Mr. Arnold states that these 
services are currently provided by 68 emploj'ees at seven 
agencies located at 13 separate locations, including two 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

leased facilities and 10 City-owned facilities. Mr. Arnold 
further states in his memorandum that housing these 
services in one facility would provide a continuum of care 
for children and families facing multiple social problems. 
According to Mr. Arnold, the Family Assessment Center at 
945 Bryant Street would serve approximately 1,400 
children and families annually. 

Mr. Arnold reports that a total of 68 employees would be 
located at the Family Assessment Center to provide family 
and child support services. These agencies include 1) DHS - 
53 employees, 2) DPH - Mental Health - 5 employees, 3) 
DPH - Maternal and Child Health - 3 employees, 4) DPH - 
Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center - 3 
employees 5) San Francisco Unified School District 
(SFUSD) - 2 employees, 6) Police Department - Juvenile 
Division - 1 employee, and 7) District Attorney's Office - 1 
employee. Attachment II, provided by Mr. Arnold is a 
description of the services to be provided by each 
department. According to Mr. Arnold, DHS will be the 
lead agency at the Family Assessment Center since all of 
the clients would be DHS clients, and 53 of the 68 City 
employees who would work at the Family Assessment 
Center would be DHS employees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Mr. Arnold states that the Family Assessment Center will 
house a total of 68 employees relocating from the following 
13 locations: 



Cirv Agency 


Total Number 
of Employees 
Relocating 


Current Location and 
Number of Employees 
Relocating Per City- 
Owned Location 


Current Location and 
Number of Employees 
Relocating Per Leased 
Location 


DHS 


53 


1001 Potrero Ave 

(SFGH) - 26 

170 Otis Street - 17 


225 Valencia Street- 7 
3801 Third Street- 3 


DPH - Mental Health 


5 


1380 Howard Street -2 
SFGH -2 


3801 Third Street- 1 


DPH - Maternal and 
Child Health 


3 


Five District Health 
Centers - 3 




DPH - Child and 
Adolescent Sexual 
Abuse Center 


3 


SFGH -3 




District Attorney 


1 


850 Bryant Street - 1 




Police Dept. - Juvenile 
Division 


1 


3401 17* Street- 1 




SFUSD 1 


2 


555 Franklin Street - 2 




Total 


68 employees 







Comments: 



1. As shown in the table above, and according to Mr. 
Arnold, the 68 employees that will be relocated to 945 
Bryant Street at the Family Assessment Center, are 
currently located at two leased facilities, 10 City owned 
facilities and one SFUSD facility, for a total of 13 separate 
locations as follows: 



(a) City-owned facilities and SFUSD: 

1. 1001 Potrero Avenue - San Francisco General 
Hospital (SFGH) is currently occupied by 26 DHS 
employees, two DPH - Mental Health employees, 
and three DPH - Child and Adolescent Sexual 
Abuse Center employees, for a total of 31 City 
employees who would relocate to 945 Bryant 
Street. 

2. 170 Otis Street is currently occupied by 17 DHS 
employees who would relocate. 



1 Not City-owned. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

3. 1380 Howard Street is currently occupied by two 
DHS employees w T ho would relocate. 

4. The five District Health Centers are currently 
occupied by three DPH - Maternal and Child Health 
employees who would relocate. These 3 employees 
work at all five sites. 

5. 3401 17 th Street is currently occupied by one Police 
Department - Juvenile Division emploj^ee who 
would relocate. 

6. 850 Bryant Street is currently occupied by one 
District Attorney employee who would relocate. 

7. 555 Franklin Street is currently occupied by two 
SFUSD employees who would relocate. 

(b) Leased facilities: 

1. 225 Valencia Street is occupied by seven DHS 
employees in 300 square feet of office space (an 
average of 42.86 square feet per employee) at 
approximately $1.64 per square foot per month for 
$492 per month, or $5,904 annually with the lease 
ending in December of 2006. 

2. 3801 Third Street is occupied by three DHS 
employees and one DPH employee in 800 square 
feet of office space (an average of 200 square feet 
per employee) at approximately $1.50 per square 
foot per month for $1,200 per month, or $14,400 
annually with the lease ending in June of 2003. 

2. The combined current leased facility space occupied by 
the eleven (seven plus four) City employees from the DHS 
and DPH total 1,100 square feet of office space (an average 
of 100 square feet per employee) for a combined total of 
$1,692 per month, or $20,304 annually. According to Mr. 
Arnold, the $20,304 in annual rent payments for the two 
leased facilities will continue to be paid subsequent to the 
relocation of these eleven City employees. 

3. According to Mr. Arnold, DHS moving costs from the 
current locations to the 945 Bryant Street facility, 
including new telephone and data lines, would be an 
estimated $500 per employee, totaling $26,500 for the 53 
DHS employees, included m the FY 2001-2002 DHS 
budget. If this moving rate of $500 per employee is applied 
to the other 15 employees, totaling $7,500, it would cost 
$34,000 ($26,500 plus $7,500) to move these employees to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



945 Bryant Street. According to Mr. Arnold, the DPH, 
District Attorney's Office, Police Department, and SFUSD 
have agreed to cover moving costs for their respective 
employees from their existing FY 2001-2002 budgets. 

4. As shown in Attachment I, Mr. Arnold reports that the 
total cost of furnishings for the subject facility is $5,900 for 
52 chairs and two file cabinets, included in the FY 2001- 
2002 budget. Mr. Arnold states that the subject facility 
already has built-in modular furniture including desks. He 
advises that at least 51 cabinets and chairs would be moved 
from the employees' current office space to 945 Bryant 
Street. Mr. Arnold further states that the desks previously 
used by the employees would be considered surplus and 
sent to the purchaser's warehouse. As of the writing of this 
report, Mr. Arnold was unable to determine the value of the 
modular furniture or the value of the existing furniture. 
Further, Mr. Arnold was unable to determine the cost of the 
furniture that was included in the rental cost of 945 Bryant 
Street. 

5. According to Mr. Arnold, there is approximately 6,250 
square feet of office space at the subject facility for which 
the DHS has no specific plans to use. Although Mr. Arnold 
states that it is "probable" that other nonprofit or 
governmental agencies will sublease this space, he can 
provide no guarantees that this will happen. According to 
Mr. Arnold, the following subleasing projections for the 
subject facility are based on subleasing agreements at a 
similar DHS leased facility located at 3120 Mission Street, 
as stated in Attachment I. Mr. Arnold states that if all of 
the additional office space were to be subleased, the 
reduced rental cost to DHS would total approximately 
$12,250 per month (6,250 square feet times $1.96 per 
square feet), or $147,000 annually, plus utilities and 
janitorial cost of $1,641 per month (allocated on the basis of 
approximately 15.5 percent of the total square feet), or 
$19,692 annually, for a total cost savings of $13,891 per 
month, or $166,692 annually. According to Mr. Arnold, if 
the unused space is not subleased, DHS will assume the 
full cost of the lease, which will be included in DHS's 
budget. Mr. Arnold states that DHS is currently in the 
process of discussing co-location with several community- 
based organizations for the additional space. If such 
unused space is rented by DHS, the annual cost to the City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

would be reduced to 8910,236, instead of the proposed cost 
of SI, 076, 928 in the first year of the lease. 

6. Ms. Venegas reports that the monthly base rent of 
S79, 136.25 or approximately $1.96 per square foot per 
month for the proposed 945 Bryant Street facility 
represents fair market value. 

7. Approval of this lease would result in additional annual 
first year costs of SI. 076,928, including $570,771 in 
General Fund monies, at a time when the City is facing a 
projected $101 million General Fund shortfall. No reduced 
rental costs from the two leased facilities will occur, and no 
City employees would be transferred from other leased 
facilities to the City-owned space being vacated, in order to 
reduce the City's rental costs as a result of this proposed 
new lease at 945 Bryant Street. While Mr. Arnold 
emphasizes that 47 percent of the first year costs, or 
$506,156 will be paid from State and Federal funds, these 
costs still represent taxpayer funds. Further, approval of 
this resolution would result in the DHS leasing 6,250 
square feet of space in excess of the space required by the 
Department. In the professional judgement of the Budget 
Analyst, leasing 6,250 of unneeded space is questionable, 
with no guarantees whatsoever that such space would 
eventually be subleased by the Department. According to 
Ms. Venegas, the building owner would only lease the 
entire building to DHS and would not permit DHS to 
exclude the 6,250 square feet of space not needed by DHS. 
As of the writing of this report, it was underdetermined 
whether the cost of modular furniture is included in the 
rental cost. 

Recommendation: Approval of this proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors for the reasons stated in Comment 
No. 7 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



At t achment T. 
Page 1 of 2 



Date: May 1, 2002 

To: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Phil Arnold 

Director of Finance and Policy 
Department of Human Services 

Re: Questions Concerning the Family Assessment Center 

1. Allocation of State and Federal revenues to the rent at 945 Bryant. Rent 
for all DHS facilities is charged as overhead to the various funding sources 
that support DHS programs. The marginal reimbursement rate for the rent at 
945 Bryant would be approximately 47%. Since the Family Assessment 
Center will include several different programs with different reimbursement 
rates, a precise allocation of the reimbursement between federal and state 
revenues can only be determined based on quarterly time-studies conducted 
by DHS staff members actually working at the site. 

2. Justification for the Family Assessment Center. The Family Assessment 
Center (FAC) is a program that will consolidate fragmented services which 
are offered to at risk children and their families by seven City agencies at 
various sites in San Francisco. The FAC will house 68 staff members from 
these seven City agencies including the Department of Human Services (53), 
Department of Public Health - Mental Health (5), Department of Public Health 
- Maternal and Child Health (3), Unified School District (2) SFPD - Juvenile 
Division (1), District Attorney (1) and the Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse 
Resource Center - CASARC (3). Locating all of these agencies at one site will 
provide a continuum of care for children and families facing multiple social 
problems. The services to be offered at this site include intake screening, 
needs assessment, counseling, overnight facilities, family visitation, sexual 
trauma investigation, public health screening and multi-disciplinary interview 
facilities. The partnership that this program represents is the product of over 
three years of planning involving all of the partner agencies. DHS estimates 
that services will be provided to approximately 1,400 children and their 
families on an annual basis. 

3. Allocation of Costs: DHS is the lead agency for this program and will 
provide 53 of the 68 staff members from City agencies assigned to the Family 
Assessment Center. All of the families and children that will utilize the Center 
will be DHS clients. Therefore, DHS has agreed to fund the rent for this new 
facility. The importance of this program is underscored by the fact that DHS 
has included the General Fund costs of the lease in the FY 2002-2003 
baseline budget, in a year when General Fund support for DHS has been 
reduced by $7 million. Since DHS receives federal and state funding for its 
programs, approximately half of the rent costs will be provided by non-City 



60 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



funding. Although site costs have not been allocated to the other participating 
City agencies, each participating department has agreed to fund its own 
staffing costs. If non-City agencies are located at this facility, rent-participation 
agreements will be negotiated. 

Sublease of the 6.250 Square Feet of Additional Space - The Family 
Assessment Center has been designed with approximately 25,000 square 
feet of office space. Of this total, approximately 75% (18,750 square feet) has 
been allocated to the 68 staff from seven City agencies that will be relocating 
to this facility. The remaining 25% of the space (6,250 square feet) has been 
identified for use by other agencies, including non-profit community-based 
organizations, that may also wish to locate their programs at the Family 
Assessment Center. Agencies that choose to participate in the Family 
Assessment Center will be expected to pay an allocated portion of facility rent 
based on the space occupied. No such agreements have been negotiated as 
yet. However, discussions have been initiated with several agencies that have 
expressed an interest in relocating to the Family Assessment Center. 

DHS has projected these space needs and allocations based on the new one- 
stop center located at 31 20 Mission. DHS is the lessee of this site which 
includes DHS programs, EDD, the Department of Rehabilitation, the Private 
Industry Council and several non-profit organizations. Sub-lease agreements 
have been negotiated with seven of these organizations to help offset the 
DHS rent cost at 3120 Mission. The total annual value of these sub-lease 
agreements is approximately $30,000. 



61 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



Date: May 8, 2002 

To: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Phil Arnold 

Director of Finance and Policy 
Department of Human Services 

Re: Responses to additional questions concerning the Family Assessment 
Center 

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED 

The Family Assessment Center (FAC) is a new program that will consolidate 
fragmented services which are offered to at risk children and their families by 
seven City agencies at various sites in San Francisco. These seven City 
agencies include the Department of Human Services, Department of Public 
Health - Mental Health, Department of Public Health - Maternal and Child 
Health, Unified School District, SFPD -Juvenile Division, District Attorney and 
the Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center- CASARC. The 
specific services to be provided by each of these agencies are as follows: 

Department of Human Services (DHS): DHS staff will provide overall 
administration of the facility and three basic services. The services include 
intake, screening and shelter for children who are removed from their birth 
families, relatives or other caretakers, supervision of family visits at the center 
and intensive case management for sexual trauma cases. 

Department of Public Health (Mental Health): Mental Health staff will provide 
therapeutic early intervention services to minors who are separated from their 
families. 

Department of Public Health (Maternal and Child Health): Maternal and Child 
Health staff will provide public health nurses to screen children who are brought 
to the FAC and to provide consultation to FAC staff and follow-up with families 
and caretakers. 

Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center (CASARC): CASARC 
staff will assist in the multi-disciplinary interview center where children who have 
been abused sexually or who suffer from serious physical abuse can be 
interviewed and, if appropriate, videotaped. The videotapes are utilized in court 
to avoid the need to have minors testify in person. 

SFPD - Juvenile Division: Staff from the SFPD - Juvenile Division will assist in 
the multi-disciplinary interview center where children who have been abused 
sexually or who suffer from serious physical abuse can be interviewed and, if 
appropriate, videotaped. The videotapes are utilized in court to avoid the need to 
have minors testify in person. 



62 



Attachment II 
?a°e 2 of 2 



District Attorney: Staff from the District Attorney will assist in the multi- 
disciplinary interview center where children who have been abused sexually or 
who suffer from serious physical abuse can be interviewed and, if appropriate, 
videotaped. The videotapes are utilized in court to avoid the need to have minors 
testify in person. 

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD): SFUSDwill move staff from 
their screening and assessment team located a 555 Franklin to the FAC. This 
team performs State-required educational needs assessments and develops 
educational plans for minors assessed to ensure that identified needs are being 
addressed. 



63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 02-0665 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Real Estate Division 

Item: Resolution approving and authorizing the conveyance of a 

20-foot by 2,350-foot water pipeline easement by the PUC to 
Ms. Jean C. Phleger in exchange for approximately 2.5 acres 
of land owned by Ms. Phleger in San Mateo County; 
adopting findings that the exchange is exempt from 
Environmental Review and is consistent with the City's 
General Plan and Eight Priority Policies of City Planning 
Code Section 101.1; and authorizing the Director of Property 
to execute documents, made certain modifications and take 
certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. 

Description: The PUC currently owns more than 20,000 acres of 

watershed land that drains into the Crystal Springs 
Reservoir in San Mateo County which is operated by the 
Public Utilities Commission's Water Department. A portion 
of the PUC-owned 20,000 acres is adjacent to a 25-acre 
parcel of land owned by Ms. Jean C. Phleger, shown on the 
attached map (Attachment I). Ms. Phleger desires to access 
a municipal water source for domestic use and fire 
prevention to service her property, requiring one of the 
following two alternatives: (1) connecting with a water line 
owned by the California Water Service Group, a private firm 
under contract with the San Mateo County Water District or 
(2) obtaining an easement from the PUC to connect with an 
existing Skyline Water District Pipeline by placing a 2-inch 
plastic water pipe in a trench along an existing service road 
on PUC property. Carneghi Bautovich & Partners, which 
was retained by the Real Estate Division, appraised each 
alternative and concluded that the first alternative would 
cost Ms. Phleger $160,000, whereas the second alternative 
would cost Ms. Phleger $35,000. Because Ms. Phleger would 
save an estimated $125,000 ($160,000 less $35,000) under 
the second alternative, Ms. Phleger is pursuing the second 
alternative by requesting that the PUC authorize 
conveyance of the water pipeline easement in exchange for 
the transfer of title to the PUC of 2.5 acres of Ms. Phleger's 
property m San Mateo County. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Director of 
Property to convey a 20-foot wide and 2,350-foot long water 
pipeline easement to Ms. Phleger in exchange for a deed to 
approximately 2.5 acres of watershed land currently owned 
by Ms. Phleger and contiguous with the more than 20,000 
acre parcel which the PUC currently owns in San Mateo 
County. The proposed resolution also declares that the 
exchange of property is consistent with the City's General 
Plan and with the Eight Priority Policies of City Planning 
Code Section 101.1 and is exempt from Environmental 
Review. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Larry Ritter of the Real Estate Division, 

the Real Estate Division retained Carneghi-Bautovich & 
Partners, Inc. to appraise the 2.5 acres of land currently 
owned by Ms. Phleger in February of 2002. Carneghi- 
Bautovich & Partners concluded that the value to the PUC 
of the 2.5 acres of watershed land was $50,000 per acre, for a 
total of $125,000 (2.5 x $50,000). As noted in the attached 
memorandum (Attachment II) provided by Mr. Ritter, the 
value of the 2.5 acres of land currently owned by Ms. 
Phleger is equal to the value of the PUC water pipeline 
easement to be conveyed to Ms. Phelger. Mr. Ritter states, 
"It was merely a coincidence that the $125,000 easement 
value equates to the value of the 2.5 acres of watershed 
land." 

2. Mr. Ritter reports that in exchange for the PUC obtaining 
a deed to the 2.5 acres of land currently owned by Ms. 
Phleger, the PUC would grant a water pipeline easement to 
Ms. Phleger in order to allow the placement of a 2-mch 
water pipe along an existing service road, which currently 
travels through both the PUC and the Phleger pronerty. As 
noted in Attachment II, Mr. Ritter reports that the effect of 
the water pipeline easement on the value of the more than 
20,000 acres that the PUC owns is considered nominal. 

3. As shown on the attached map and explained in 
Attachment III, provided by Mr. Ritter, the existing service 
road currently travels though both the PUC and the Phleger 
property, including the approximately 2.5 acres that Ms. 
Phleger would transfer to the PUC under the proposed 
agreement. Mr. Ritter reports that under the proposed 
agreement Ms. Phleger would also (1) reserve an access and 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



cc: Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



utility easement over the portions of the service road that 
are located on the approximately 2.5 acres to be deeded to 
the PUC and (2) receive an access and utility easement over 
the portions of the service road that are located on PUC 
property. Mr. Ritter notes that the proposed agreement 
would provide a legal clarification of each party's interest in 
the service road. 

4. According to Mr. Ritter, the Planning Department has 
determined that the proposed agreement is m conformance 
with the City's General Plan and the Eight Priority Policies 
of the City Planning Code and is Categorically Exempt from 
Environmental Review. 

5. In summary, Mr. Ritter notes that in exchange for the 
PUC granting Ms. Phleger a water pipeline easement valued 
at $125,000, the PUC would receive 2.5 acres of land from 
Ms. Phleger, also valued at $125,000. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



/ ft '7-/^ 

Harvey M. Rose 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

66 



Attachment I 



Page 1 of I 




Attachment II 

City and County of San Francisco Real Estate Division 

Administrative Services Department 




MEMORANDUM 

May 8, 2002 



VIA FACSIMILE - 252-0461 



TO: 



FROM: 



Katie Fitzpatrick 
Budget Analyst's Office 



Larry Ritter 
Real Estate 




SUBJECT: PUC/Phleger Exchange 
San Mateo County 



The value of the proposed waterline easement is the benefit to the property owner 
(Phleger). The benefit derived is a cost saving of $125,000 (the difference in cost 
between the two waterline alternatives). The effect of the waterline easement on 
the value of the watershed land is considered nominal. The easement will run under 
an existing service road. The value of the Water Department property before and 
after the easement is considered for practical purposes to be equivalent. 

It was merely a coincidence that the $1 25,000 easement value equates to the value 
of 2.5 acres of watershed land. 



LR\S508PhleeerEst_Knfcp3trckMem; 



(415)554-9850 
FAX: (415) 552-9215 
94102 



Office of the Director of Proporty 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 

68 



5an Francisco, CA 
TOTPL p .Cl 



.na—?na? 



Attachment Il X 
Page 1 of 1 

City and County of San Francisco Real Estate Division 

Administrative Services Department 




MEMORANDU 
May 7, 2002 
VIA FACSIMILE- 252-0461 



TO: Katie Fitzpatrick 

Budget Analyst's Office 




FROM: Larry Ritter 

Real Estate 



SUBJECT: Clarification of the Access Road Title Issue 
Phleger Property - San Mateo County 



Presently, portions of the Water Department's access road to its watershed land lie 
within the Phleger 25± acre property. Additionally, portions of the Phleger access 
road meander onto the Water Department's property. Use of this dirt and gravel 
road has been through a mutual verbal understanding; no road easement 
agreement has ever been recorded. 

As part of this transaction, the 2.5 acres being deeded to the Water Department 
contains the dirt and gravel road. The Water Department will therefore own the 
roadway which it currently uses without benefit of a recorded easement. Also as 
part of this transaction, Phleger will reserve an access and utility easement over the 
road within the 2.5 acres and over the portion which meanders outside the 2.5 acres 
onto the Water Department property. Each party will therefore have a recorded 
document protecting their respective interests. 



lR\5503PhlegerEG!_JFitzpairlckMemo 



W 5) 554-9850 Office of tho Director of Property 

I (: (415) 552-9216 25 Van Nose Avenuo, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 

9. 02 

69 "-'-- P. Qi 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, May 22, 2002 



12:30 PM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano. 






Supervisor Ammiano appointed himself to serve as a member of the Finance Committee. 

MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 12:42 p.m. 
020635 [Lease of Property] 

Resolution authorizing the lease of real property at 945 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California, for the Public 
Library. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact; District 6.) 

4/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/15/02, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. 

Amended on page 1, line 3, by replacing "Human Services" with "Public Library." 

5/15/02, CONTINUED Heard in Committee. Speakers: John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; Susan Hildreth, City Librarian; Marc 

McDonald, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 

Continued to 5/22/02. 

Speakers: None. 
Continued to 5/29/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020761 [Certification to Accompany Application for State Grant for Excelsior Library Renovation| 
Supervisor Sandoval 

Resolution certifying project budget, local funding, supplemental funding and public library operations 
pursuant to the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation 
Bond Act of 2000. (Public Library) 

5/8/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Neighborhood Services and Recreation Committee. 
5/16/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Susan Hildreth. City Librarian: James 
Chafee; David Hooey, New Mission Terrace Improvement Association; Peter Watfteld; Steve Currier, 
President, Outer Mission Residents Association. 
To Board as a Committee Report, Monday, May 28, 2002. 
RECOMMENDED AS COMMITTEE REPORT by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 12:36 PM on l'S/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 22, 2002 



020554 [Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Recycled Water| 
Supervisors Maxwell, Peskin 

Resolution approving and authorizing the SFPUC General Manager to sign an Agreement for the Purchase and 
sale of recycled water between the SFPUC, the City of Daly City, and three local area golf courses (i.e. 
Olympic Club, San Francisco Golf Club and the Lake Merced Golf Club). 

(Fiscal impact.) 

4/8/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Maxwell; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Josh Milstein, Deputy 
City Attorney; Mr. Carlin, Public Utilities Commission; Tim Cohen, Co-Chairman, Lake Merced Task Force; 
Dede Wormian. San Francisco Beautiful. 
Supen'isor Peskin added as co-sponsor. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020555 [First Amendment to Water Supply Contract] 
Supervisors Maxwell, Peskin 

Resolution approving and authorizing the SFPUC General Manager to sign the First Amendment to the water 
supply contract between the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Daly City for purposes of 
conducting an Aquifer Recharge Study. 
4/8/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers; Supervisor Maxwell; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Josh Milstein, Deputy 
City Attorney; Mr. Carlin, Public Utilities Commission; Tim Cohen, Co-Chairman, Lake Merced Task Force; 
Dede Wortman, San Francisco Beautiful. 
Supervisor Peskin added as co-sponsor. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020755 [Pension Buy-Backs-Rollovers/Transfers) 
Supervisor Daly 

Ordinance authorizing the Retirement System to accept rollovers and transfers from qualified and non-qualified 
tax plans for buybacks. (Retirement System) 

(Requires nine votes to pass.) 

5/8/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Clare Murphy, General Manager, Employees 
Retirement System. 
Supen'isor Daly added as sponsor. 

To Board as a Committee Report, Monday, May 28, 2002. 
RECOMMENDED AS COMMITTEE REPORT by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:36 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 22, 2002 



The Chair will entertain a motion to continue consideration of the following item (File 020471) 
to a future meeting: 



020471 [Increasing the Annual Residential Rent Ordinance Fee to a maximum of S27.00 per unit] 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Chapter 37A "Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Fee" by 
amending Sections 37A.2 and 37A.6 to increase the maximum annual residential rent ordinance fee from $19 
per unit in fiscal year 2000-2001 or $16 per unit in other years, to $27.00 per unit. (Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Board) 

4/10/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled for consideration as soon as 

possible. 

4/23/02 - Supervisor Ammiano waived the 30-day rule. 

5/13/02, SUBSTITUTED. Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board submitted a substitute ordinance bearing new title. 

5/13/02, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Speakers: None. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 

Transferred to Budget Committee. 
REFERRED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020675 [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Works] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Public Works (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget), in 
the amount of $150,000, to fund the Sloat Boulevard Median Island Landscape Improvements. (Public Works 
Department) 

5/3/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $150,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020708 [Lease of Real Property] 
Supervisors Peskin, Daly 

Resolution authorizing the lease of 18,862 sq. ft. of space at 1740 Folsom Street for the Sheriffs Department to 
consolidate training facilities. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact; Public Benefit Recipient; District 6.) 
5/6/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald. Director of Property. Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services: Michael Hennessey, Sheriff. 
Supervisors Peskin and Daly added as co-sponsors. 
To Board as a Committee Report, Monday, May 28, 2002. 
RECOMMENDED AS COMMITTEE REPORT by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly. Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed al 1 2:. Hi I'M on J J (14 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 22, 2002 



020709 [Lease of Real Propertyl 
Supervisors Peskin, Daly 

Resolution authorizing the lease of 4,997 sq. ft. of space at 555 7th Street to the San Francisco PreTrial 
Diversion Project. (Real Estate Department) 

(Public Benefit Recipient; District 6.) 
5/6/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services; Michael Hennessey, Sheriff. 
Supervisors Peskin and Daly added as co-sponsors. 
To Board as a Committee Report, Monday, May 28, 2002. 
RECOMMENDED AS COMMITTEE REPORT by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020704 [Appropriating Funding for Moving the Sheriff to 1740 Folsom Street] 
Supervisors Peskin, Daly 

Ordinance appropriating $351,858 from Federal funding for housing prisoners for one-time expenses 
associated with moving the Sheriffs training and other departmental services to 1740 Folsom Street fiscal year 
2001-02. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

5/6/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Sen'ices; Michael Hennessey, Sheriff. 
Supervisors Peskin and Daly added as co-sponsors. 
To Board as a Committee Report, Monday, May 28, 2002. 
RECOMMENDED AS COMMITTEE REPORT by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020752 [State funds transfer to CMHDA for contract services to improve mental health treatment for children 
in foster care and other children placed outside of San Francisco] 

Resolution endorsing the transfer of State general funds from the State to the California Mental Health 
Directors Association for a contract to provide services to foster care and other Medi-Cal eligible children 
placed outside of San Francisco, for the period of July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. (Public Health 
Department) 

5/7/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the May 22, 2002 meeting 
5/10/02 - Referred to Youth Commission for comment and recommendation. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Albert Eng, Community Mental Health 
Services, Department of Public Health. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 1:44 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 12:36 PM on 3/5/04 



».a5 

f 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Librarv-Govt. Doc. Section 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 
/ 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: ^day 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 02-0635 



May 16, 2002 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAY 2 2 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
15, 2002. The Committee is considering a proposal for the Public Library, 
instead of the Department of Human Services, to occupy the 945 Bryant 
Street building. 



Departments: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of the entire building, 
and 29 parking spaces located at 945 Bryant Street for the 
Department of Human Services. 

945 Bryant Street between 7 th Street and 8 th Street. 

To consolidate the Family Assessment Program into one 
location, where the DHS, Department of Public Health 
(DPH), Police Department, District Attorney's Office, and 
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) will offer 
services to families and "at risk" children in the child 
welfare system. 

945 Bryant Street, Limited Liability Company 

City and County of San Francisco, acting bv and through 
DHS. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Increase 

to the Base Rent: 



Right of Renewal: 



Utilities: 



Janitorial Services: 

Total Estimated 
First Year Cost 
of Lease: 



Ten-years. Anticipated commencement date is 45 days 
after approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

40,410 square feet at a base monthly rate of $79,136.25, or 
approximately $1.96 per square foot per month, totaling 
$949,635 per year, or $23.50 per square foot annually. 

The base monthly rent is subject to a one-time Consumer 
Price Index (CPI) adjustment for the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Area at the start of the sixth year of the 
proposed 10 year lease, of no less than 15 percent and no 
more than 35 percent. No other CPI adjustments are to be 
made according to Ms. Claudine Venegas of the RED, to the 
proposed lease rents. 

Six options of five years each to extend the term of the 
lease, or a total of up to 30 additional years. Each five year 
option to extend would increase the base rent to 95 percent 
of the then fair market value, as determined by an 
independent appraiser retained by both parties, if a fair 
market value cannot be negotiated, for space of comparable 
size, age, quahty, and location within the South of Market 
area of the City. According to Ms. Venegas, no CPI 
adjustments to the rent are to be made under the six option 
periods. 

To be paid by the City at an estimated annual cost of 
$58,595 (approximately $4,883 per month). 

To be provided by the City at an estimated annual cost of 
$68,697 (approximately $5,725 per month). 



$1,076,927 ($949,635 plus $58,595 plus $68,697) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Tenant 

Improvements: 



According to Ms. Venegas, the landlord would be required 
to pay for tenant improvements to the premises, not to 
exceed $140,000. Tenant improvements would include 
costs for permits and approvals, government fees, licenses, 
inspections, construction, and building improvements. 
According to Ms. Venegas, the principal tenant 
improvement to be made will be the reconfiguration of 
existing workstations within the subject facility, which 
according to Ms. Venegas will be completed before the 
commencement of the lease. 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



As described in the memorandum, provided by Mr. Phil 
Arnold of DHS (Attachment I), payments for the base rent 
would be funded by 47 percent State and Federal revenues, 
and 53 percent of the base rent would be funded by General 
Fund monies, subject to appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors in the DHS annual budget. According 
to Mr. Arnold, since the families and children utilizing the 
Family Assessment Center will be DHS clients, DHS has 
agreed to fund the $79,136.25 monthly, or $949,635 annual 
rent cost, as well as the $10,608 monthly, or $127,292 
($58,595 plus $68,697) annual janitorial and utilities cost, 
for a total cost to DHS of $89,744 monthly, or $1,076,927 
annually. Of this annual cost, 47 percent would be paid 
from State and Federal funds or $506,156, and 53 percent, 
or $570,771, would be paid by the City's General Fund. 

Mr. Arnold states that the cost of the proposed lease for the 
remainder of Fiscal Year 2001-2002 is estimated to total 
approximately $89,744.25, for the month of June 2002 
including the cost for the base rent of $79,136.25 plus one 
month's utilities and janitorial costs of $10,608. Mr. Arnold 
advises that this one-month cost is available in the DHS FY 
2001-2002 budget. Subsequent rent payments and related 
costs would be subject to appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors in the DHS budget. Further, Mr. 
Arnold states in Attachment I, "The importance of this 
program is underscored by the fact that DHS has included 
the General Funds costs of the lease in the FY 2002-2003 
baseline budget, in a year when General Fund support for 
DHS has been reduced by $7.0 million." 

The proposed resolution would authorize DHS to enter into 
a new ten year lease for 40,410 square feet of space, which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



includes the entire building at 945 Bryant Street, 
consisting of three floors, or approximately 13,470 square 
feet per floor. Included on the premises in addition to the 
40,410 square feet of space are 29 off-street parking spaces. 
According to Ms. Janice Anderson-Santos of DHS, the 
facility would be used to house DHS's multi-service Family 
Assessment Center, at one location in order to provide 
services to families and children that are entering or are at 
risk of entering the child welfare system. Of the 40,410 
square feet of space, the subject facility will provide 18,750 
square feet or 275 square feet per City employee of office 
space for 68 employees, all of whom would be relocated 
from other locations (see table below). An additional 15,410 
square feet of space would be used for a reception area, 
child play area, space for supervised visits, a dormitory, 
training and conference rooms, secure storage and a Multi- 
Disciplinary Interview Center for abused children. 

The balance of 6,250 square feet (40,410 less 18,750 less 
15,410) is surplus to the Department's needs (see Comment 
No. 5). 

According to Mr. Arnold, the services to be offered at the 
Family Assessment Center include intake screening, needs 
assessment, counseling, overnight facilities, family 
visitation, sexual trauma investigation, public health 
screening and multi- disciplinary interview facilities. 

As described in Attachment I, Mr. Arnold states that these 
services are currently provided by 68 employees at seven 
agencies located at 13 separate locations, including two 
leased facilities and 10 City-owned facilities. Mr. Arnold 
further states in his memorandum that housing these 
services in one facility would provide a continuum of care 
for children and families facing multiple social problems. 
According to Mr. Arnold, the Family Assessment Center at 
945 Bryant Street would serve approximately 1,400 
children and families annually. 

Mr. Arnold reports that a total of 68 employees would be 
located at the Family Assessment Center to provide family 
and child support services. These agencies include 1) DHS - 
53 employees, 2) DPH - Mental Health - 5 employees, 3) 
DPH - Maternal and Child Health - 3 employees, 4) DPH - 
Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center - 3 
employees 5) San Francisco Unified School District 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



(SFUSD) - 2 employees, 6) Police Department - Juvenile 
Division - 1 employee, and 7) District Attorney's Office - 1 
employee. Attachment II, provided by Mr. Arnold is a 
description of the services to be provided by each 
department. According to Mr. Arnold, DHS will be the 
lead agency at the Family Assessment Center since all of 
the clients would be DHS clients, and 53 of the 68 City 
employees who would work at the Family Assessment 
Center would be DHS employees. 

Mr. Arnold states that the Family Assessment Center will 
house a total of 68 employees relocating from the following 
13 locations: 



City Agency 


Total Number 
of Employees 
Relocating 


Current Location and 
Number of Employees 
Relocating Per City- 
Owned Location 


Current Location and 
Number of Employees 
Relocating Per Leased 
Location 


DHS 


53 


1001 Potrero Ave 

(SFGH) - 26 

170 Otis Street - 17 


225 Valencia Street- 7 
3801 Third Street- 3 


DPH - Mental Health 


5 


1380 Howard Street -2 
SFGH - 2 


3801 Third Street - 1 


DPH - Maternal and 
Child Health 


3 


Five District Health 
Centers - 3 




DPH - Child and 
Adolescent Sexual 
Abuse Center 


3 


SFGH -3 




District Attorney 


1 


850 Bryant Street - 1 




Police Dept. - Juvenile 
Division 


1 


3401 17 th Street- 1 




SFUSD' 


2 


555 Franklin Street - 2 




Total 


68 employees 







Comments: 



1. As shown in the table above, and according to Mr. 
Arnold, the 68 employees that will be relocated to 945 
Bryant Street at the Family Assessment Center, are 
currently located at two leased facilities, 10 City owned 
facilities and one SFUSD facility, for a total of 13 separate 
locations as follows: 



1 Not Citv-owned. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



(a) City-owned facilities and SFUSD: 

1. 1001 Potrero Avenue - San Francisco General 
Hospital (SFGH) is currently occupied by 26 DHS 
employees, two DPH - Mental Health employees, 
and three DPH - Child and Adolescent Sexual 
Abuse Center employees, for a total of 31 City 
employees who would relocate to 945 Bryant 
Street. 

2. 170 Otis Street is currently occupied by 17 DHS 
employees who would relocate. 

3. 1380 Howard Street is currently occupied by two 
DHS employees who would relocate. 

4. The five District Health Centers are currently 
occupied by three DPH - Maternal and Child Health 
employees who would relocate. These 3 employees 
work at all five sites. 

5. 3401 17 th Street is currently occupied by one Police 
Department - Juvenile Division employee who 
would relocate. 

6. 850 Bryant Street is currently occupied by one 
District Attorney employee who would relocate. 

7. 555 Franklin Street is currently occupied by two 
SFUSD employees who would relocate. 

(b) Leased faculties: 

1. 225 Valencia Street is occupied by seven DHS 
employees in 300 square feet of office space (an 
average of 42.86 square feet per employee) at 
approximately $1.64 per square foot per month for 
$492 per month, or $5,904 annually with the lease 
ending in December of 2006. 

2. 3801 Third Street is occupied by three DHS 
employees and one DPH employee in 800 square 
feet of office space (an average of 200 square feet 
per employee) at approximately $1.50 per square 
foot per month for $1,200 per month, or $14,400 
annually with the lease ending in June of 2003. 

2. The combined current leased facility space occupied by 
the eleven (seven plus four) City employees from the DHS 
and DPH total 1,100 square feet of office space (an average 
of 100 square feet per employee) for a combined total of 
$1,692 per month, or $20,304 annually. According to Mr. 
Arnold, the $20,304 in annual rent payments for the two 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



leased facilities will continue to be paid subsequent to tbe 
relocation of these eleven City employees. 

3. According to Mr. Arnold, DHS moving costs from the 
current locations to the 945 Bryant Street facility, 
including new telephone and data lines, would be an 
estimated $500 per employee, totaling $26,500 for the 53 
DHS employees, included in the FY 2001-2002 DHS 
budget. If this moving rate of $500 per employee is applied 
to the other 15 employees, totaling $7,500, it would cost 
$34,000 ($26,500 plus $7,500) to move these employees to 
945 Bryant Street. According to Mr. Arnold, the DPH, 
District Attorney's Office, Police Department, and SFUSD 
have agreed to cover moving costs for their respective 
employees from their existing FY 2001-2002 budgets. 

4. As shown in Attachment I, Mr. Arnold reports that the 
total cost of furnishings for the subject facility is $5,900 for 
52 chairs and two file cabinets, included in the FY 2001- 
2002 budget. Mr. Arnold states that the subject facility 
already has built-in modular furniture including desks. He 
advises that at least 51 cabinets and chairs would be moved 
from the employees' current office space to 945 Bryant 
Street. Mr. Arnold further states that the desks previously 
used by the employees would be considered surplus and 
sent to the purchaser's warehouse. As of the writing of this 
report, Mr. Arnold was unable to determine the value of the 
modular furniture or the value of the existing furniture. 
Further, Mr. Arnold was unable to determine the cost of the 
furniture that was included in the rental cost of 945 Bryant 
Street. 

5. According to Mr. Arnold, there is approximately 6,250 
square feet of office space at the subject facility for which 
the DHS has no specific plans to use. Although Mr. Arnold 
states that it is "probable" that other nonprofit or 
governmental agencies will sublease this space, he can 
provide no guarantees that this will happen. According to 
Mr. Arnold, the following subleasing projections for the 
subject facility are based on subleasing agreements at a 
similar DHS leased facility located at 3120 Mission Street, 
as stated in Attachment I. Mr. Arnold states that if all of 
the additional office space were to be subleased, the 
reduced rental cost to DHS would total approximately 
$12,250 per month (6,250 square feet times $1.96 per 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

square feet), or $147,000 annually, plus utilities and 
janitorial cost of $1,641 per month (allocated on the basis of 
approximately 15.5 percent of the total square feet), or 
$19,692 annually, for a total cost savings of $13,891 per 
month, or $166,692 annually. According to Mr. Arnold, if 
the unused space is not subleased, DHS will assume the 
full cost of the lease, which will be included in DHS's 
budget. Mr. Arnold states that DHS is currently in the 
process of discussing co-location with several community- 
based organizations for the additional space. If such 
unused space is rented by DHS, the annual cost to the City 
would be reduced to $910,236, instead of the proposed cost 
of $1,076, 928 in the first year of the lease. 

6. Ms. Venegas reports that the monthly base rent of 
$79,136.25 or approximately $1.96 per square foot per 
month for the proposed 945 Bryant Street facility 
represents fair market value. 

7. Approval of this lease would result in additional annual 
first year costs of $1,076,928, including $570,771 in 
General Fund monies, at a time when the City is facing a 
projected $101 million General Fund shortfall. No reduced 
rental costs from the two leased facilities will occur, and no 
City employees would be transferred from other leased 
facilities to the City-owned space being vacated, in order to 
reduce the City's rental costs as a result of this proposed 
new lease at 945 Bryant Street. While Mr. Arnold 
emphasizes that 47 percent of the first year costs, or 
$506,156 will be paid from State and Federal funds, these 
costs still represent taxpayer funds. Further, approval of 
this resolution would result in the DHS leasing 6,250 
square feet of space in excess of the space required by the 
Department. In the professional judgement of the Budget 
Analyst, leasing 6,250 of unneeded space is questionable, 
with no guarantees whatsoever that such space would 
eventually be subleased by the Department. According to 
Ms. Venegas, the building owner would only lease the 
entire building to DHS and would not permit DHS to 
exclude the 6,250 square feet of space not needed by DHS. 

Recommendation: Approval of this proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors for the reasons stated in Comment 
No. 7 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 2 



Date: May 1 , 2002 

To: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Phil Arnold 

Director of Finance and Policy 
Department of Human Services 

Re: Questions Concerning the Family Assessment Center 

1. Allocation of State and Federal revenues to the rent at 945 Bryant. Rent 
for all DHS facilities is charged as overhead to the various funding sources 
that support DHS programs. The marginal reimbursement rate for the rent at 
945 Bryant would be approximately 47%. Since the Family Assessment 
Center will include several different programs with different reimbursement 
rates, a precise allocation of the reimbursement between federal and state 
revenues can only be determined based on quarterly time-studies conducted 
by DHS staff members actually working at the site. 

2. Justification for the Family Assessment Center. The Family Assessment 
Center (FAC) is a program that will consolidate fragmented services which 
are offered to at risk children and their families by seven City agencies at 
various sites in San Francisco. The FAC will house 68 staff members from 
these seven City agencies including the Department of Human Services (53), 
Department of Public Health - Mental Health (5), Department of Public Health 
- Maternal and Child Health (3), Unified School District (2) SFPD - Juvenile 
Division (1), District Attorney (1) and the Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse 
Resource Center- CASARC (3). Locating all of these agencies at one site will 
provide a continuum of care for children and families facing multiple social 
problems. The services to be offered at this site include intake screening, 
needs assessment, counseling, overnight facilities, family visitation, sexual 
trauma investigation, public health screening and multi-disciplinary interview 
facilities. The partnership that this program represents is the product of over 
three years of planning involving all of the partner agencies. DHS estimates 
that services will be provided to approximately 1 ,400 children and their 
families on an annual basis. 

3. Allocation of Costs: DHS is the lead agency for this program and will 
provide 53 of the 68 staff members from City agencies assigned to the Family 
Assessment Center. All of the families and children that will utilize the Center 

ill/ill ho nUC ^liontc ThorofAro nUC (-.<-><; -.^r QC ^-l + ~ fM*»W + u ~ --.-** •£-.- iu:_ 

Wi'l OS U!iC5 CiiSiilS. ! nSi 8iu. 6, UnO ! .as ayi ecu iu mi ivj ii ic i ci u iui li 113 I lew 

facility. The importance of this program is underscored by the fact that DHS 
has included the General Fund costs of the lease in the FY 2002-2003 
baseline budget, in a year when General Fund support for DHS has been 
reduced by $7 million. Since DHS receives federal and state funding for its 
programs, approximately half of the rent costs will be provided by non-City 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



funding. Although site costs have not been allocated to the other participating 
City agencies, each participating department has agreed to fund its own 
staffing costs. If non-City agencies are located at this facility, rent-participation 
agreements will be negotiated. 

Sublease of the 6.250 Square Feet of Additional Space - The Family 
Assessment Center has been designed with approximately 25,000 square 
feet of office space. Of this total, approximately 75% (18,750 square feet) has 
been allocated to the 68 staff from seven City agencies that will be relocating 
to this facility. The remaining 25% of the space (6,250 square feet) has been 
identified for use by other agencies, including non-profit community-based 
organizations, that may also wish to locate their programs at the Family 
Assessment Center. Agencies that choose to participate in the Family 
Assessment Center will be expected to pay an allocated portion of facility rent 
based on the space occupied. No such agreements have been negotiated as 
yet. However, discussions have been initiated with several agencies that have 
expressed an interest in relocating to the Family Assessment Center. 

DHS has projected these space needs and allocations based on the new one- 
stop center located at 3120 Mission. DHS is the lessee of this site which 
includes DHS programs, EDD, the Department of Rehabilitation, the Private 
Industry Council and several non-profit organizations. Sub-lease agreements 
have been negotiated with seven of these organizations to help offset the 
DHS rent cost at 3120 Mission. The total annual value of these sub-lease 
agreements is approximately $30,000. 



10 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



Date: May 8, 2002 

To: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Phil Arnold 

Director of Finance and Policy 
Department of Human Services 

Re: Responses to additional questions concerning the Family Assessment 
Center 

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED 

The Family Assessment Center (FAC) is a new program that will consolidate 
fragmented services which are offered to at risk children and their families by 
seven City agencies at various sites in San Francisco. These seven City 
agencies include the Department of Human Services, Department of Public 
Health - Mental Health, Department of Public Health - Maternal and Child 
Health, Unified School District, SFPD -Juvenile Division, District Attorney and 
the Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center- CASARC. The 
specific services to be provided by each of these agencies are as follows: 

Department of Human Services (DHS): DHS staff will provide overall 
administration of the facility and three basic services. The services include 
intake, screening and shelter for children who are removed from their birth 
families, relatives or other caretakers, supervision of family visits at the center 
and intensive case management for sexual trauma cases. 

Department of Public Health (Mental Health): Mental Health staff will provide 
therapeutic early intervention services to minors who are separated from their 
families. 

Department of Public Health (Maternal and Child Health): Maternal and Child 
Health staff will provide public health nurses to screen children who are brought 
to the FAC and to provide consultation to FAC staff and follow-up with families 
and caretakers. 

Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center (CASARC): CASARC 
staff will assist in the multi-disciplinary interview center where children who have 
been abused sexually or who suffer from serious physical abuse can be 
interviewed and, if appropriate, videotaped. The videotapes are utilized in court 
to avoid the need to have minors testify in person. 

SFPD - Juvenile Division: Staff from the SFPD - Juvenile Division will assist in 
the multi-disciplinary interview center where children who have been abused 
sexually or who suffer from serious physical abuse can be interviewed and, if 
appropriate, videotaped. The videotapes are utilized in court to avoid the need to 
have minors testify in person. 



11 



Attachment ] 
Pa^e 2 of J 



District Attorney: Staff from the District Attorney will assist in the multi- 
disciplinary interview center where children who have been abused sexually or 
who suffer from serious physical abuse can be interviewed and, if appropriate, 
videotaped. The videotapes are utilized in court to avoid the need to have minors 
testify in person. 

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD): SFUSD will move staff from 
their screening and assessment team located a 555 Franklin to the FAC. This 
team performs State-required educational needs assessments and develops 
educational plans for minors assessed to ensure that identified needs are being 
addressed. 



12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 02-0761 



Department: 
Item: 



Source of Funds: 

Grant Amount: 

Grant Period: 
Required Match: 



Source of Funds 
For City Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Description: 



Public Library 

Resolution certifying the Public Library's grant 
application in the amount of $2,683,850 to the State 
Library, for the renovation of the Excelsior Branch 
Library, including the certification of the Excelsior 
Branch Library renovation project budget and the 
certification of the source of the matching funds required 
by the subject State grant. 

California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public 
Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 
(Proposition 14), which is administered by the State 
Library (see Comment No. 1) 

$2,683,850 (65% of total estimated State eligible project 
costs of $4,129,000) 

July 1, 2002 through March 31, 2005 (2 years 8 months) 

$1,445,150 or 35% of total estimated State eligible project 
costs of $4,129,000 (see Comment No. 2) 



$1,270,150 from the City's Branch Library Facilities 
Improvement Bonds and $175,000 The Friends & 
Foundation of the San Francisco Public Library 

The grant terms prohibit the inclusion of indirect costs in 
the grant budget. 

According to Mr. George Nichols of the Public Library, 
although the City's Administrative Code does not 
currently require Board of Supervisors approval to apply 
for a grant, the State grant guidelines for this subject 
grant require that the Board of Supervisors to certify the 
grant application, including the certification of the 
Excelsior Branch Library renovation project budget and 
the certification of the source of the matching funds 
required by the subject State grant, prior to submission of 
the grant application to the State Library for 
consideration. Mr. Nichols advises that if the State 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Library awards such grant funds to the Public Library for 
the renovation of the Excelsior Branch Library, the Public 
Library will request separate approval from the Board of 
Supervisors to accept and expend the grant funds. 

On November 7, 2000, San Francisco voters approved 
Proposition A, Branch Library Facilities Improvement 
Bonds, which authorized the City to issue up to 
$105,865,000 in General Obligation Bonds to (1) 
rehabilitate, renovate, and improve 19 existing Branch 
Libraries; (2) acquire land and construct four new City- 
owned Branch Libraries to replace Branch Libraries 
currently housed in leased facilities; (3) construct a new 
Branch Library in the Mission Bay neighborhood; and, (4) 
provide a facility for a system-wide administrative 
support center. Attachment I, provided by the Public 
Library is a list of the 19 existing Branch Libraries and 
four new Branch Libraries that would be rehabilitated 
under the Branch Libraries Improvement Bond Act, 
including the Excelsior Branch Library. 

Mr. Nichols advises that the renovation of the Excelsior 
Branch Library is one of the 19 Branch Library 
renovation projects approved by the San Francisco voters 
in November of 2000. The Excelsior Branch Library is a 
City-owned facility located at 4400 Mission Street and 
occupies 8,322 square feet. Mr. Nichols reports that the 
renovation of the Excelsior Branch Library includes (a) 
seismic reinforcement of the existing structure; (b) 
renovation of the electrical, mechanical and life-safety 
systems; (c) renovation of the existing service counters 
and bathrooms to meet Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA) standards; (d) redesigning existing floor space; (e) 
new furniture, fixtures and equipment; (f) new floor 
finishes; and, (g) painting. Mr. Nichols states that the 
proposed improvements would expand the usable square 
footage of the Excelsior Branch Library by 234 square feet 
from 8,322 square feet to 8,556 square feet. 

Mr. Nichols advises that construction of the Excelsior 
Branch Library renovations are anticipated to begin in 
September of 2003 and to be completed in September of 
2004 or approximately one year. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: Although, as previously stated, the State's eligible project 

costs total $4,129,000, the Excelsior Branch Library 
renovation project is estimated to cost a total of 
$4,319,000, or $190,000 more than the State's eligible 
costs. Attachment II, provided by the Public Library, 
contains estimated budget details totaling $4,319,000. 
According to Mr. Nichols, $190,000 in renovation-related 
costs are ineligible for State grant funding because the 
$190,000 includes (a) $140,000 for Local Project 
Administration costs for the Bond Program Manager to 
manage the Excelsior Branch Library renovation project, 
(b) $30,000 for Relocation and Moving Costs to move the 
Branch Library's books and furnishings out of the Branch 
Library, store them during the construction and move the 
materials back into the Branch Library when construction 
is complete, and (c) $20,000 for new books and materials 
for the Excelsior Branch Library that would be purchased 
after the renovation is complete. Mr. Nichols further 
advises that the $140,000 in Local Project Administration 
Costs was appropriated in the Public Library's FY 2001- 
2002 budget from the City's Branch Library Improvement 
Program Bond monies, the $30,000 in Relocation and 
Moving Costs, would be funded from the City's Branch 
Library Improvement Program Bond monies, which is 
included in the Public Library's FY 2002-2003 budget 
request, and the $20,000 for new books and materials will 
be subject to future appropriation approval in the Public 
Library's operating budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 
when it is anticipated that the Excelsior Branch Library 
will reopen. 

Project Funding 

Sources: California Reading and Literacy Improvement 

and Public Library Construction 

and Renovation Bond Act of 2000, 

Proposition 14 (subject of this resolution) $2,683,850 

Proposition A, Branch Library 

Facilities Improvement Bonds 

($1,270,150 plus $140,000 plus $30,000) 1,440,150 

The Friends & Foundation of the 

San Francisco Public Library 175,000 

FY 2004-2005 Public Library Operating Budget 20.000 

Total Funding Sources $4,319,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. In March of 2000, California voters approved the 

California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public 
Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 
(Proposition 14). According to Mr. Nichols, these State 
Bond monies must be used for library construction and 
remodeling projects and will be awarded on a competitive 
basis. Mr. Nichols advises that the subject grant 
application must be submitted to the State Library 
by June 14, 2002 for the first cycle of Proposition 14 grant 
applications. The Public Library will submit additional 
Proposition 14 grant applications in the second cycle (due 
in March of 2003) and the third cycle (due in January of 
2004). 

2. Mr. Nichols advises that the subject grant requires 
$1,445,150 in matching funds or 35 percent of total 
estimated State eligible costs of $4,129,000. Of the 
$1,445,150 in matching funds, $1,270,150 would be 
provided by the City's Branch Library Facilities 
Improvement Bond monies and $175,000 would be 
provided by The Friends & Foundation of the San 
Francisco Public Library, a nonprofit organization, for 
furniture, fixtures and equipment for the Excelsior 
Branch Library (see Comment No. 3). 

3. Mr. Nichols notes that the City's Branch Library 
Improvement Bonds prohibits the use of the City's Branch 
Library Improvement Bond monies for furniture, fixtures 
and equipment, which are estimated to cost $500,000 for 
the Excelsior Branch Library. Therefore, the estimated 
furniture, fixtures and equipment costs, totaling $500,000 
will be funded as follows: (a) $325,000 from the subject 
grant; and, (b) $175,000 from the Friends & Foundation of 
the San Francisco Public Library. 

4. According to Mr. Nichols, the Department of Public 
Works (DPW) will provide architectural, engineering and 
construction management services, with the assistance of 
as-needed specialized consultants under contract with 
DPW, for the Excelsior Branch Library renovation project. 
Mr. Nichols advises that the specialized consultants 
would be selected through a Request for Proposals 
process. Mr. Nichols further advises that the construction 
contracts would be awarded on a competitive bid basis. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Nichols, additional budget details, 
including hours and hourly rates, will be available when 
the Public Library has awarded the construction and 
consultant contracts at which time the Public Library will 
request Board of Supervisors approval to accept and 
expend the State grant funds. 

5. If the City is not awarded the full amount of the subject 
State grant funds of $2,683,850, Mr. Nichols advises that 
funding will be supplemented through the Public 
Library's Bond Fund Reserve of $5,500,000. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



5/15/02 



attachment I 



BRANCH LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT BOND PROGRAM 



Branch 


Proposed 
Budget 


Excelsior 


3,629,000 


Marina 


3,904,500 


Mission Bay 


3,975,100 


Noe Valley 


4,189,500 


Parkside 


2,736,000 


Richmond 


7,248,500 


Glen Park 


4,698,000 


Visitacion Valley 


5,158,500 


Admin Support Srvcs Center 


8,626,000 


Ingleside 


4,430,000 


Portoia 


4,430,000 


North Beach 


3,287,000 


Sunset 


1,415,500 


West Portal 


3,904,500 


Bayview 


3,629,000 


Eureka Valley 


4,351,000 


Ortega 


3,382,000 


Western Addition 


3,258,500 


Anza 


4,503,000 


Bernal Heights 


5,082,500 


Golden Gate Valley 


5,073,000 


Potrero 


4,018,500 


Merced 


3,990,000 


Park 


1,244,500 


Presidio 


1,453,500 


Library Program Management 


800,000 


Program Consultants 


750,000 


City Program Management 


3,600,000 


Real Estate Dept 


120,000 


Relocation & Moving Reserve 


4,320,000 


Bond Financing Costs 


1,500,000 


Reserve 


5,557,400 




Total 


118,265,000 



NOTE: Project specific costs represent funds for acquisition, planning, and construction. Program management, 
relocation, and other costs are separate budget line items. 



Page 1 or 2 

Library Project Budget (All projects except Multipurpose Projects) 

If there are no costs in any line item below for the project, specify by putting a zero '0' in the blank provided. 

Line Items: Eligible 

1) New Construction > _$ 70,000 

2) Remodeling Construction > _$ 2.230,000 

3) Contingency > _$ 341 ,500 

4) Appraised Value of Building > _$ 0__ 

5) Appraised Value of Land > J 



6) Site Development > _$ 38,500 

7) Site Demolition > S Q 



Site Permits & Fees > J 33,400 

9) Site Option to Purchase Agreement > _$ 

10) Furnishings & Equipment Costs > _S 500,000 

11) Signage > J 33,500 

12) Architectural & Engineering Costs > _$ 452,100 

13) Construction Cost Estimator Fees > _$ 35,000 

14) Interior Designer Fees > _$ 50,000 

15) Geotechnical/Geohazard Reports > _$ 



16) Hazardous Materials Consultant Fees > _$ 10,000 

17) Energy Audit, Structural Engineering, Feasibility & ADA Studies > _$ 75,000 

18) Library Consultant Fee > _$ 15,000 

19) Construction Project Management > J> 185,000 

20) Other Professional Fees > _$ 60,000 

21) Local Project Administration Costs > _S 

22) Worksof Art > _S 0__ 

23) Relocation Costs & Moving Costs > _5 0__ 

24) Acquisition of Library Matenals > _5 

25) Other (Specify): > J 0_ 

26) Other (Specify): > J 0_ 

27) Other (Specify): > J 0_ 



28) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: > $ 4.129.000 



19 



s 


Ineliqible 




s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





$ 





s 





$ 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 





s 


140,000 


s 





s 


30.000 


$ 


20,000 


s 





s 





s 





s 


190.000 



25 



Paee 2 of 2 



Sources Of Project Revenue (All projects except Multipurpose Projects) 

29) State Matching Funds (65% of Une 28' Eligible Costs) > S 2.683,850 

30) Local Matching Funds (Line 28 Eligible Costs minus Une 29) > S 1,445,150 

[Must also equal the total 0/ Lines 31-35] 

Sources of Local Matching Funds: 

31) City > S 1,270,150 

32) County > _S o_ 

33) Special District > S o 

34) Pnvate > S 175,000 

35) Other (Specify): > J 0_ 

36) Local Credits [Land 2 and A&E Fees] > _$ 0_ 

37) Adjusted Local Match [Line 30 minus Line 36] 

38) Supplemental Local Funds [Same as Line 28 ineligible] 

39) TOTAL PROJECT INCOME: [Add Lines 29, 30, and 38] 

' Up to a maximum ot S20,0OO,O0O 

1 Land credit is not allowed for land acquired by funds from the 'Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act ot 1398' [See 
Education Code section 199S5 (c) which reterences Part 63 (commencing with section 100400 ot the Education Code)] 



s 


1,445,150 


s 


190,000 


s 


4,319,000 



20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 02-0554 



Department: 
Item: 



Purpose of the 
Agreement: 



Term of the 
Agreement: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution approving and authorizing the PUC General 
Manager to execute an Agreement for the Purchase and 
Sale of Recycled Water (Agreement) between the PUC, 
Daly City, the North San Mateo County Sanitation 
District, a municipal corporation and subsidiary of Daly 
City, and the following three local, private golf clubs: (1) 
the Olympic Club located in both San Francisco and San 
Mateo County; (2) the San Francisco Golf Club located in 
San Francisco; and, (3) the Lake Merced Golf Club located 
in Daly City. 



The purpose of the subject proposed new Agreement is (a) 
to preserve the potable water in the Westside Basin 
Aquifer 1 ; (b) maintain Lake Merced water levels; (c) have 
the PUC acquire well-site easements for the storage of 
excess water for use during shortages and emergencies 
from the following three golf clubs: (1) the Olympic Club; 
(2) the San Francisco Golf Club; and, (3) the Lake Merced 
Golf Club for a future conjunctive use water program 2 ; 
and, (d) create an additional, dependable supply of 
irrigation water for the three golf clubs. 



The proposed Agreement commences upon approval of the 
Agreement by the Board of Supervisors and terminates 50 
years after the initiation, estimated to be March or April 
of 2004, of Tertiary Recycled Water 3 deliveries by Daly 
City and the North San Mateo County Sanitation District, 



1 Mr. Joshua Milstein of the City Attorney's Office advises that the Westside Basin Aquifer extends, 
underground, from Golden Gate Park through the Sunset District to Lake Merced and the southeast 
through Daly City, Colma and San Bruno towards the San Francisco Airport, and supplies water to these 
cities and numerous cemeteries and golf courses overlying the Westside Basin Aquifer. Mr. Milstein 
further advises that groundwater pumping is unregulated by the State and no single entity has 
jurisdictional control over groundwater withdrawls from the Westside Basin Aquifer. 

2 "Conjunctive use" refers to the coordinated management of surface and groundwater resources. The 
available storage space in the Westside Basin Aquifer represents a potentially valuable regional asset 
that can be used to store imported surface water from the PUC water system for use during water 
shortages and emergencies. 

3 Mr. Michael Carlin of the PUC advises that Tertiary Recycled Water is recycled wastewater that has 
been treated for re-use in accordance with State health requirements. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

to the three golf clubs for irrigation of the golf clubs. Mr. 
Milstein advises that the recycled water deliveries under 
the proposed Agreement can be renewed upon terms and 
conditions agreed to by all involved parties no later than 
five years prior to the termination of the subject proposed 
Agreement, or approximately in March or April of 2049. 

Description: The proposed resolution would approve and authorize the 

Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Recycled Water 
(Agreement) between the PUC, Daly City, the North San 
Mateo County Sanitation District, a municipal 
corporation and subsidiary of Daly City, and the following 
three local, private golf clubs: (1) Olympic Club, located 
adjacent to Lake Merced in both San Francisco and San 
Mateo counties; (2) San Francisco Golf Club, located on 
Brotherhood Way; and, (3) the Lake Merced Golf Club, 
located at the intersection of Highway 280 and John Daly 
Boulevard in Daly City. 

Attachment I is a memorandum from Mr. Milstein, which 
provides background information on water resources in 
the Westside Basin Aquifer, which includes the Lake 
Merced area, and efforts to manage the groundwater in 
the Westside Basin Aquifer, including the development of 
the subject recycled water program, and a conjunctive use 
water program. 

Mr. Milstein advises that the proposed Agreement for the 
Purchase and Sale of Recycled Water would: 

• Require Daly City and the North San Mateo County 
Sanitation District (a subsidiary of Daly City that 
treats wastewater from Daly City and adjacent areas 
in Northern San Mateo County) to design, finance, 
construct, operate, own and maintain all recycled 
water treatment, transmission, storage and pumping 
facilities necessary to deliver tertiary recycled water to 
the three golf clubs (see Comment No. 1). 

• Require the PUC to contribute $1,000,000 towards the 
$6,000,000 in capital costs of the tertiary recycled 
water facility to be built by Daly City and the North 
San Mateo County Sanitation District by October 1, 
2002 (see Comment No. 3). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



• Permit the PUC, at a later date, to install one water 
well on each of the three golf clubs for the purpose of 
the injection of surplus water for storage and the 
recovery of such water as needed (see Comment No. 5) 
during water shortages or for emergencies. 

• Require the three golf clubs to reduce the amount of 
irrigation water pumped from the Westside Basin 
Aquifer by at least 70 percent and purchase an 
equivalent amount of water from the North San Mateo 
County Sanitation District's new recycled water 
facility. 

• Permit Daly City and the North San Mateo County 
Sanitation District to sell tertiary recycled water 
within San Francisco's borders (see Comment No. 6). 

Mr. Michael Carlin of the PUC advises that the PUC does 
not currently sell irrigation water to the three golf clubs 
because each golf course pumps its irrigation waters at 
their sole cost from the Westside Basin Aquifer using 
water wells on their respective golf clubs. Mr. Carlin 
advises that the PUC and Daly City currently sell 
drinking water to the three golf clubs and the proposed 
Agreement would not affect the sale of drinking water to 
the three golf clubs. 

According to Mr. Milstein, the purpose of reducing the 
groundwater the three golf courses pump from the 
Westside Basin Aquifer is to preserve the groundwater in 
the Westside Basin Aquifer for use in maintaining Lake 
Merced water levels and to manage the Aquifer for 
drinking water. Mr. Milstein advises that water levels at 
Lake Merced have been slowly decreasing over time due 
to decades of groundwater pumping by Daly City and the 
three golf clubs and over time, this pumping has resulted 
in a depression in the groundwater levels in the deep 
aquifer segment beneath Daly City. Mr. Milstein advises 
that the PUC is currently devising a project to refill Lake 
Merced and maintain the lake at a desired level in 
coordination with other water resource projects such as 
the creation of a conjunctive use water program, 
development of recycled water in San Francisco, and the 
addition of storm water to Lake Merced. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. Under the terms of the proposed Agreement Daly City 

and the North San Mateo County Sanitation District are 
obligated to construct and maintain a waste water 
recycling facility at the North San Mateo County 
Sanitation District's existing water treatment plant, 
located in the Westlake neighborhood of Daly City, to 
deliver tertiary recycled water to the three private golf 
clubs for irrigation purposes. According to the Agreement, 
the estimated construction cost of the recycling facility is 
$6,000,000 and the PUC will contribute $1,000,000 to 
such construction costs (see Comment No. 3). Under the 
terms of the proposed Agreement only Daly City and the 
North San Mateo County Sanitation District would be 
liable for maintenance and replacement costs. Mr. 
Milstein advises that the average annual aggregate 
amount of water to be delivered to the three golf clubs is 
estimated to be 690 acre-feet or 30,056,400 cubic feet 
(approximately 228.5 million gallons) of water annually. 
Daly City and the North San Mateo County Sanitation 
District will enter into separate agreements with the golf 
clubs regarding the actual delivery of tertiary recycled 
water to the three golf clubs. 

2. Under the terms of the proposed Agreement, Daly City 
and the North San Mateo County Sanitation District 
would charge the Olympic, San Francisco and Lake 
Merced Golf Clubs $0.50 per 100 cubic feet of recycled 
water purchased, which would be adjusted annually by 
the Consumer Price Index or when there is an 
extraordinary change in the power costs in the operation 
and delivery of such tertiary recycled water. The PUC 
does not currently sell irrigation water to the three golf 
clubs. The subject proposed Agreement does not affect the 
delivery of drinking water to the clubs. 

3. As previously noted, Daly City and the North San 
Mateo County Sanitation District's recycled water facility 
is estimated to cost $6,000,000. Mr. Carlin advises that 
the estimated completion date of this facility is January 1, 
2004. As previously noted, delivery of the tertiary 
recycled water to the three golf clubs is estimated to begin 
in March or April of 2004. Mr. Carlin further advises that 
Daly City has already secured its $5,000,000 funding 
share from Federal and State sources. Mr. Milstein states 
that Daly City and the North San Mateo County 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Sanitation District would be responsible for the 
maintenance and repair of the recycled water facility, at 
no cost to the PUC. 

In Attachment II, provided by the PUC, Mr. Carlin states 
that the PUC has agreed to contribute the additional 
needed $1,000,000 towards the cost of the recycled water 
facility in order to ensure that the facility is built and 
tertiary recycled water is utilized by the three golf clubs 
instead of the Westside Basin Aquifer potable waters. 
Mr. Carlin advises that the use of the tertiary recycled 
waters instead of the Westside Basin Aquifer waters 
would preserve the potable water in the Westside Basin 
Aquifer as well as assist in maintaining the Lake Merced 
water levels. 

Mr. Carlin reports that the PUC would fund this 
$1,000,000 contribution from its FY 2001-2002 budget, 
which set aside $2,000,000 for the Lake Merced Water 
Project, as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. Ms. Marite Moore of the City Attorney's 
Office advises that, to date, $377,077 of the $2,000,000 
appropriation has been expended on outside legal counsel 
and expert groundwater services related to the Westside 
Basin Aquifer and Lake Merced water levels. Therefore, 
$1,622,923 of the $2,000,000 appropriation is available 
for expenditure. Attachment III, provided by the City 
Attorney's Office, describes the scope of services provided 
by the outside counsel and groundwater experts and 
summarizes the $377,077 in expenditures to date. 

Mr. Milstein advises that the three golf clubs would also 
indirectly contribute to the capital costs of the new 
recycled water facility through their water rates, which 
would be $0.50 per 100 cubic feet of water. Mr. Milstein 
further advises that currently the three golf clubs pump 
groundwater from the Westside Basin Aquifer at their 
sole cost, which is estimated to be approximately $0.20 
per 100 cubic feet of water or $0.30 per 100 cubic feet less 
than the rate the three golf clubs would pay under the 
proposed Agreement. 

4. Under the proposed Agreement, the PUC is permitted 
to enter into three separate Water Well-Site Easement 
Agreements with each of the three golf clubs, whereby 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

each golf course would grant an easement for a single 
approximately 30 square foot area for the purpose of 
installing water wells for the injection and recovery of 
PUC drinking water. Mr. Milstein advises that these 
proposed easement rights were included in the subject 
proposed Agreement for consideration of the PUC's 
$1,000,000 contribution to the cost of the recycled water 
facility that Daly City and the North San Mateo County 
Sanitation District will construct. As of the writing of 
this report, the PUC has not estimated the value of the 
three easements it would acquire under the terms of the 
proposed Agreement in comparison to the PUC's 
contribution of $1,000,000. 

Under the terms of the proposed Agreement, the PUC 
would not be authorized to pump the water formerly 
pumped by the golf clubs except in the event of an 
emergency. The proposed Agreement does authorize the 
PUC to pump drinking water that it will inject into the 
Westside Basin Aquifer from the wells it will install on 
the three golf clubs. Mr. Milstein advises that these three 
separate Water Well-Site Easement Agreements between 
the PUC and the three golf clubs would be subject to 
separate, future Board of Supervisors approval. 

According to Mr. Milstein, the PUC would be responsible 
for the costs of installing and maintaining the wells and 
all pipelines, power lines and other facilities needed to 
operate the water wells on the golf clubs. As of the 
writing of this report, Mr. Carlin was unable to provide 
the Budget Analyst with cost estimates for such work. 

5. Although the PUC is currently the retail water 
provider in San Francisco, under the terms of the 
proposed Agreement, Daly City and the North San Mateo 
County Sanitation District would be authorized to sell 
tertiary recycled water within San Francisco's borders to 
the Olympic Club and the San Francisco Golf Club. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
26 



cQ - d 



■<Sz 



City and County of San Francisco 

^£2H5?k Dennis J. Herrera 
City Attorney 




Attachment I 
Page 1 of 4 

Office of the City attorney 
joshua d. milste1n 

Deputy City Attorney 

DIRECT Diau [41 5) 554-421 1 

E-Mail: JOSHUA_D_M!LSTEIN @ci.Sf.CO.uS 



MEMORANDUM 
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budge: Analyst's Office 

FROM: Joshua D. Milstein 

Deputy City Attorney 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract; (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 

At your request I provide the following background memo on the above referenced Board 
actions. 

Lake Merced and the Westside Basin Aquifer: On January 31, 2001, California Trout 
("Cal Trout") filed a petition at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) asking the 
Board and five other state agencies to force a settlement of longstanding groundwater pumping 
disputes in the Westside Basin to protect and restore Lake Merced. Cal Trout named as 
respondents (defendants) all of the municipal and irrigation pumpers in the Westside Basin, 
including the City of San Francisco; Daly City; California Water Service Company; San Bruno; 
and numerous golf courses and cemeteries that use groundwater for irrigation purposes. San 
Francisco has also been asked to assist in furthering a settlement. These irrigators generally have 
so-called "overlying rights" to pump water associated with land ownership, while the municipal 
entities distribute water throughout their service areas under "appropriative" water right theory, 
which allows distribution of water away from the parcel where water is pumped. Generally 
speaking, the State of California does not regulate groundwater pumping through a water right 
license system, as is the case for most surface water supplies derived from streams and lakes. 

The Westside Basin extends south from Golden Gate Park through the Sunset District to 
Lake Merced, and then runs southeast through Daly City, Colma and San Bruno towards the San 
Francisco Airport. The Cal Trout petition seeks to force the entities using groundwater from the 
Westside Basin to take control of groundwater management through the development of recycled 
water and conjunctive use programs in the basin. "Conjunctive use" refers to the coordinated 
development of surface and groundwater supplies to prevent overdraft of aquifers and to make 
optimal use of available water supplies. 

In response to the petition, staff from the SFPUC, lawyers from this office and outside 
water counsel have participated in several confidential mediation sessions between Daly City, 
the three private Lake Merced area golf clubs, and San Francisco. The mediation effort got its 
start through litigation we filed against Daly City and the Olympic Club concerning the January 
1 998 overflow of the Vista Grande Canal, which damaged John Muir Drive and a fishing pier at 
Lake Merced. The underlying roadway damage litigation has been settled. The mediation 

1390 Market Street. Suns 41 8- San Francisco. California 94102 
Reception: (415) £54-3900 OR (415) 554-6765 • Facsimile: (415) 554-6793 



27 



r. \oi , 0" Y «"'M'0'c*«C-dcc 



:a'd y.&e 



Attachment I 



Page 2 of 4 

City and County of San Francisco Office of the City attorney 

Memorandum 
Privileged & Confidential 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst's Office 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

PAGE: 2 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract: (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 



continues to resolve the greater water resource issues affecting Lake Merced and the Westside 
Basin aquifer. In general, our efforts have focused on three types of projects: stormwater 
addition, recycled water, and a conjunctive use program. The two items before the Board deal 
with the last two of these project areas. 

Storm Wafer: Last year the SFPUC approved a two year study of adding stormwater 
from the Daly City area (Vista Grande Canal) to Lake Merced. Under the first phase of this 
program, a small treatment device is now being installed by Daly City near the entrance to the 
Vista Grande tunnel. The device will not be installed to permit Daly City to add stormwater to 
the lake at this time. Rather, the device will treat small quantities of stormwater and return them 
to the canal. This real-time operating experience can then be used to design a project for the full 
scale addition of stormwater to Lake Merced, assuming water quality concerns can be addressed. 
The full scale project will cost over $5 million and the relative apportionment of costs between 
Daly City and San Francisco has not been determined. We believe that adding clean stormwater 
represents one of the most viable, cost effective actions needed to raise Lake Merced water 
levels. 

Recycled Water: The recycled water contract before the Board between the golf clubs, 
Daly City and the SFPUC is for a supply of recycled water from Daly City to replace up to 85% 
of golf course irrigation pumpage. Recycled water can be used for non-potable purposes such as 
irrigation, and the water to be provided is treated at the "tertiary" level, meaning that use for 
irrigation is basically unrestricted if the system is designed and operated to produce water in 
accordance with State Department of Health Services regulations. The SFPUC is contributing $1 
million towards the capital cost of this project in exchange for injection and recovery well sites 
on each of the three clubs funded from the $2 million set aside in the PUC's budget to address 
the Lake Merced issues. 

The well sites to be acquired as part of the recycled water contract may be used as part of 
a future conjunctive use program whereby imported surface water will be injected into the 
aquifer for later recovery during droughts and emergencies. As such, the well sites would be 
considered "joint" assets under the 1984 Master Water Sales Contract with the suburban water 
purchasers, meaning that when the well sites are placed in service, the suburbs will ultimately 
pay approximately 2/3 of the $1 million asset cost based on their percentage of water used from 
the SFPUC system. Under the 1984 Master Water Contract, such joint facilities are paid for on 
the basis of how much water is used; the suburbs currently use about 2/3 of the total SFPUC 
supply, hence they will wind up paying 2/3 of the cost of the asset and infrastructure needed to 
pay for the conjunctive use program. 

At the request of Cal Trout the SFPUC agreed that these wells would not be used to 
pump water formerly pumped by the golf courses except in dire emergencies or if subsequent 
technical work reveals that such pumping is necessary. The agreement will enable Daly City to 
obtain State grant funds for much of the project cost. The golf clubs agreed to more than double 
their water costs as part of this historic agreement. 



?a 



;:\AT7CrtM.Nr jgt*"l53 DCX 



' a ' d Attachment I 



Page 3 of 4 

City and County of San Francisco Office of the City Attorney 

Memorandum 
Privileged & Confidential 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst's Office 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

PAGE: 3 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract; (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 



Conjunctive Use Program: Daly City, like each of the other 25 wholesale water 
customers of the SFPUC, has an "individual water supply contract" with the SFPUC for purchase 
of drinking water from the SFPUC water system. These individual contracts were signed 
contemporaneously with the 1984 Master Water Sales Agreement and generally specify the 
service area and connection locations of the individual customers. 

The contract amendment before the Board would amend Daly City's individual water 
supply contract with the SFPUC to allow Daly City to take delivery of surplus imported water 
(from the SFPUC water system) and reduce its pumping by a like amount. During this period the 
resultant change in aquifer water storage levels will be studied by our experts for use in devising 
a basin-wide conjunctive use program. We have accordingly invited the California Water 
Service Company and the City of San Bruno (both wholesale water customers of the SFPUC) to 
participate in the ongoing mediation sessions, and anticipate that similar study arrangements will 
be reached with these utilities. Ultimately, the SFPUC will work with these wholesale customers 
to devise a major conjunctive use program for the Westside Basin, primarily in north San Mateo 
County because that is where the available storage is located. 

The conjunctive use aspect of the program has been designed as a study because more 
information is necessary before a basin-wide conjunctive use program can be devised. Such a 
program will require millions of dollars of investment by the City and the suburban water users, 
and realistically creates one of the most environmentally sound and economical ways of 
increasing water storage for use during droughts and emergencies. Conjunctive use of aquifers 
has long been recognized as an economical way to store water; because no new reservoirs are 
required, conjunctive use has generally been favorably received by resource agencies and 
interested environmental groups. Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the SFPUC would be 
required to investigate all feasible alternatives to constructing additional surface water reservoirs, 
including conjunctive use programs in the SFPUC water service area. Such studies are critical to 
implementation of the SFPUC capital program to the extent that the program contemplates 
expansion of the SFPUC water system. To sum up, developing a conjunctive use program in the 
Westside Basin would benefit the SFPUC water system because it would result in the storage of 
water that could be easily accessed during an emergency or drought that could restrict the 
imports of surface water to the northern Peninsula by the SFPUC. 

The full scale conjunctive use program, if implemented, will require a large investment in 
facilities and staff which cannot be determined at this time but which will be the subject of 
intensive negotiations between the SFPUC and the suburbs. The agreements arising out of these 
negotiations will be subject to Board approval. 

Ongoing Technical Work: Our groundwater experts, Luhdorff & Scalmanini, have 
installed 7 shallow monitoring wells around Lake Merced and one at Pine Mountain Lake. Their 
work has progressed to the point that several conclusions can be reached: 



29 



C-WCXmT >»C'»" .:> soc 



sa a 



S0-d -laid Attachment I 

Page 4 of 4 

City and County of San Francisco Office of the City attorney 

Memorandum 
Privileged L Confidential 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst's Office 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

PAGE: 4 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract; (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 

1. Lake Merced is part of the shallow aquifer and the water in the lake is actually the 
. water table level in this shallow aquifer. 

2. Past work by the City contained several errors, most notably in the surface elevations 
of wells that led to the conclusion that there was a groundwater depression west of Lake Merced 
towards the ocean. This is not the case, and water continues to flow from the lake (subsurface) 
towards the ocean. 

3. The likelihood of seawater intrusion is slim due to the underlying geology. Even 
though the water levels in Daly City's deeper aquifer wells are 100 feet or more below sea level, 
the upturned clay strata beneath the Olympic Club (visible in the cliffs near Fort Funston) 
combined with the shallow continental shelf makes it unlikely that sea water intrusion will occur 
directly west of Daly City. The only place identified as a potential corridor for seawater 
intrusion is near the historic Lake Merced outlet in the Zoo, and in this area ( and in San 
Francisco north to and including Golden Gate Park), wells have not been pumped to levels below 
sea level. Over the next several months additional deep monitoring wells will be installed by 
Daly City to further analyze the salt/freshwater interface in this portion of the Westside Basin. 

4. Decades-long groundwater pumping by Daly City and others to the south has created a 
reversed gradient in the deeper aquifer such that the shallow water table aquifer that comprises 
the Lake now tends to slowly migrate towards Daly City, in addition to the continuation of some 
outflow towards the ocean near the San Francisco Zoo. Today the North Lake is higher in 
surface elevation than the South Lake, which is higher than Impound Lake. So although 
pumping has no direct effect on Lake Merced (the shallow monitoring wells show no impact 
from deeper pumping), such pumping has indirectly lowered the water levels in the shallow 
aquifer because the clay layers apparently are discontinuous beneath the Westlake Area of Daly 
City. Cessation of pumping for decades or generations would not eliminate the tendency of the 
lake to be drawn towards the pumping depression to the south. If the available underground 
storage space is to be used, a separate program of adding water to Lake Merced must be devised. 

5. The available storage space beneath Daly City and other parts of the aquifer to the 
south represent a very valuable asset for the SFPUC water system, which needs such water 
storage, Lake Merced needs to be managed separately, basically by finding sources of water to 
add to the Lake on a more or less continuous basis. This will require continuation of efforts to 
add stormwater to the Lake, and ultimately may include the use of recycled water from San 
Francisco's Oceanside treatment plant. 

If you have any further questions please give me a call. I will be available at the Finance 
Committee Hearing to answer any Board member questions on this complicated subject. 



J.D.M. 



M. Carlin 

T. Lakey V. Clayton 



30 



£0/^3 • A 



Z s*-c-t~w.»Gl»Mli0 OCC 




Water 

hetch hetchy 

Water & Power 

clean water 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



MEMORANDUM 



WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 

MAYOR 



ANN MOLLER CAEN 
PRESIDENT 

E. DENNIS NORMANDY 
ASHOK KUMAR BHATT 
JEFFREY CHEN 

PATRICIA E. MARTEL 

GENERAL MANAGER 



To: Maureen Singleton 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Michael P. Carlin 

Planning Bureau Manager 

Date: May 13,2002 

RE: Recycled Water Agreement Between Daly City, SFPUC and the three 
Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs 

I am writing in response to your inquiry regarding the contribution of 
51,000,000 to North San Mateo Sanitation District recycled water project. 
Your inquiry was targeted on whether we have placed a monetary value on the 
easements that will be granted to the SFPUC by the three Lake Merced Area 
Golf Clubs. 

The SFPUC interests are twofold. First, the long-term sustainability of the 
Westside Basin Aquifer is critical to our mission as the regional water 
provider and as the water provider for the residents of San Francisco. The 
Westside Basin Aquifer is a high value water source that could be an 
emergency or supplemental source of water for San Francisco residents. It is 
currently a source of drinking water for Daly City and other communities 
located south of San Francisco. Second, the health of Lake Merced is tied to 
the long-term sustainability of the Westside Basin Aquifer. Moving forward 
the recycled water project meets these interests. 

The SFPUC will receive an easement right from each of the golf clubs to 
locate and develop high volume injection and recovery wells. According to 
our technical experts, the golf clubs present the most logical and least 
disruptive (i.e. location to our existing water transmission system and 
rm'nimizing neighborhood impacts) sites for such facilities. The SFPUC 
transmission pipelines run through two of the golf courses. The easements for 
the transmission pipelines were acquired as part of the City acquisition of the 
Spring Valley Water Company. Thus, the acquisition of the well easements in 
conjunction with the transmission easements presents a unique value that is 
more valuable than the individual easements. 



PLANNING BUREAU 

1 1 45 Market Street - SurrE 40 1 - San Francisco. CA 94 1 03 - (4 1 5) 934-5700 

31 



FAX (41 5) 934-5750 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



,fPO 




MEMORANDUM 



Water 

hetch hetchy 

WATER Sc POWER 
CLEAN WATER 



The ability to recharge the Westside Basin Aquifer presents a unique 
opportunity to store excess imported surface water from the SFPUC Hetch 
Hetchy system to be used as a supplemental water supply or during an 
emergency situation. We have not calculated the value of the easements but 
we are currently assessing the avoided costs for new surface water storage 
versus the potential value of the groundwater storage as part of our regional 
water supply planning process. 

As part of tins agreement, the water formerly pumped by the golf clubs would 
remain in the Westside Basin Aquifer. This would contribute to the long-term 
sustainability of the aquifer and the health of Lake Merced. We have not 
established nor assigned a value to the health of Lake Merced. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (415)934-5787. 



PLANNING BUREAU 

1 1 45 MARKET STREET - SurTE 40 1 - SAN Francisco, CA 94 1 03 - (4 1 5) 9345700 - FAX (4 1 5) 934-5750 

32 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 2 



Information about Lake Merced Consultants 



Ellison & Schneider 



Groundwater law expert to assist PUC in developing and implementing a program to 
raise the water level in Lake Merced including a conjunctive use program to import, store 
and use the water. The firm assists City Attorney and PUC to assure that contracts and 
programs comply with applicable ground water statutes and existing case law. The firm 
is actively involved in ongoing mediation. 

Luhdorff & Scalmanini 

Hydrogeologists, geologists and engineers to provide information about ground water 
management and development. The group examines subsurface ground strata to obtain 
information about underground conditions and water migration including the physical 
conformation of the aquifer. The group will provide a conceptual design for future 
facilities including operating plants. The group also reviewed the work of previous 
consultants to confirm the accuracy of their data and to identify, update and correct the 
data as necessary. 

JRP Historical 

Water law historians to study historical records including maps, deeds, court records and 
the like to determine predevelopment conditions at Lake Merced. The group used the 
historical records, some dating back to the 19 th Century, to study the impact of 
development on water flow and to map easement rights. The group also produced maps 
of San Francisco's riparian rights at and around Lake Merced. 



NVACCOUKI\SHARH>VSMIVCCO»*kk<»ot.cli 

33 



Attachment III 
Lake Merced Aquifer Page 2 of 2 

Cost Detail 
FY 2002 to Date 

Firm Hourly Rate FY 2002 to Date 

Ellison & Schneider Partner $285 $ 190,953 

Ellison for Luhdorff & Scalmanini Geologist $115 to $180, Engineer $ 155,276 

$115, Hydrogeologist $78 to $90 

JRP Historical Principal $90, Associates $55 $ 21,139 

Others $ 9,709 



Total FY 2002 to date $ 377,077 



5/16/02 Lakemerc.xls FY02todate 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 02-0555 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution approving and authorizing the PUC General 
Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Water 
Supply Contract between the PUC and Daly City for the 
purpose of conducting a two-year Aquifer Recharge Study. 

In August of 1984, the PUC and Daly City entered into a 
Water Supply Contract, whereby the PUC sells Daly City 
drinking water from Hetch Hetchy as well as from other 
PUC Bay Area watersheds to supplement Daly City's 
water needs. According to Mr. Michael Carlin of the PUC, 
Daly City's remaining water needs are met by using wells 
to pump groundwater from the Westside Basin Aquifer 1 
at Daly City's sole cost. Mr. Carlin states that under the 
terms of the existing agreement, the PUC currently sells 
to Daly City 4.292 million gallons of drinking water per 
day. According to Mr. Joshua Milstein of the City 
Attorney's Office, Daly City has the right to pump 
groundwater for distribution within its service area based 
on its continued groundwater pumping over the past 40 
years. 

Mr. Carlin reports that Daly City's groundwater pumping 
from the Westside Basin Aquifer has resulted in a 
lowering of groundwater in the Westside Basin Aquifer 
segment lying beneath Daly City and, as a result, 
groundwater space is available and could possibly be used 
to store surplus PUC drinking water. 

The proposed First Amendment to the Water Supply 
Contract between the PUC and Daly City would: 

1. Permit the PUC to conduct a two-year Aquifer 
Recharge Study of the Westside Basin Aquifer 



1 Mr. Milstein advises that the Westside Basin Aquifer extends, underground, from Golden Gate 
Park through the Sunset District to Lake Merced and the southeast through Daly City. Colma and 
San Bruno towards the San Francisco Airport, and supplies water to these cities and numerous 
cemeteries and golf courses overlying the Westside Basin Aquifer. Mr. Milstein further advises that 
groundwater pumping is unregulated by the State and no single entity has jurisdictional control over 
groundwater withdrawls from the Westside Basin Aquifer. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



segment that lies underneath part of Daly City at an 
estimated cost of $35,000, which would be funded from 
a $2,000,000 appropriation previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors (see Comment No. 2). 

2. Require Daly City to provide the PUC with the 
necessary data for the two-year Aquifer Recharge 
Study. 

3. Require Daly City to reduce its groundwater pumping 
from the Westside Basin Aquifer for the two-year 
Aquifer Recharge Study period when surplus drinking 
water of an equal amount (approximately 4 million 
gallons per day) is available to the PUC for sale to 
Daly City. 

4. Require the PUC to sell such surplus drinking water 
to Daly City at $0.35 per 100 cubic feet of water (see 
Comment No. 1). 

In Attachment I, Mr. Milstein advises that the purpose of 
the proposed two-year Aquifer Recharge Study is to 
analyze the effect of reduced groundwater pumping on 
subsurface water levels in the aquifer for the possibility of 
storing excess PUC drinking water in the Westside Basin 
Aquifer for use by the PUC during water shortages. Mr. 
Carlin states that reduced groundwater pumping would 
help the Westside Basin Aquifer naturally recharge itself. 
However, because of longstanding pumping, it is 
anticipated that there still would be space available to 
store excess drinking water in the Westside Basin 
Aquifer, according to Mr. Carlin. 

Mr. Milstein advises that Aquifer Recharge Study results 
would be used to assist the PUC, and the PUC's wholesale 
water customers, including the California Water Service 
Company serving South San Francisco and the City of 
San Bruno, in devising a Basin-wide conjunctive use 
water program 2 to manage water supplies and prevent 
further depletion of groundwater in the Westside Basin 
Aquifer (see Comment No. 3). 



2 Mr. Milstein advises that conjunctive use water programs refer to the coordinated development of 
surface and groundwater supplies to prevent the depletion of aquifers and provide for the optimal 
use of available water supplies. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Under the existing Agreement between the PUC and Daly 
City, the PUC charges Daly City $0.85 per 100 cubic feet 
of drinking water. Under the terms of the proposed 
Amendment, the PUC would sell to Daly City surplus 
drinking water. The Budget Analyst has requested a 
memorandum from the PUC to provide further written 
explanation for the proposed resolution. As of the writing 
of this report, the Budget Analyst has not received the 
requested memorandum. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, Daly City currently pumps water from 

the Westside Basin Aquifer at its sole cost. According to 
Mr. Carlin, it currently costs Daly City approximately 
$0.35 per 100 cubic feet of water to pump such 
groundwater for use in Daly City. Mr. Milstein states 
that under the terms of the proposed Amendment, the 
PUC would sell its surplus drinking water to Daly City at 
$0.35 per 100 cubic feet of water, which is $0.50 per 100 
cubic feet less than the rate the PUC currently charges 
Daly City for the drinking water delivered under the 
existing Water Supply Contract between the PUC and 
Daly City. According to Mr. Milstein, the rate of $0.35 
per 100 cubic feet of water was negotiated between Daly 
City and the PUC so that it would be cost neutral for Daly 
City to purchase surplus drinking water from the PUC 
instead of pumping groundwater, thereby encouraging 
Daly City to reduce its groundwater pumping operations. 

Mr. Milstein advises that the overall goal of this proposed 
resolution is to reduce Daly City's groundwater pumping 
for drinking water by up to 80 percent or by 2.976 million 
gallons per day from 3.72 million gallons per day to 
744,000 gallons per day, during periods when surplus 
PUC drinking water is available so that the PUC can 
conduct the subject Aquifer Recharge Study. As 
previously noted, under the existing agreement, Daly City 
pays the PUC the wholesale rate for water, which is 
currently $0.85 per 100 cubic feet of water and the PUC 
currently provides Daly City with 4.292 million gallons of 
drinking water per day. 

In the attached memorandum (Attachment II) from Mr. 
Bill Laws of the PUC, Mr. Laws advises that the marginal 
cost to the PUC of providing such surplus drinking water 
to Daly City is between $0.0303 and $0.0852 per 100 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

cubic feet of water. Therefore, Mr. Laws further advises 
that the rate of $0.35 per 100 cubic feet of water to be 
charged under the proposed Amendment to Daly City for 
such drinking water exceeds the PUC's costs. 

2. According to Mr. Milstein, the FY 2001-2002 PUC 
budget set aside $2,000,000 for the Lake Merced Project 
to address the Lake Merced and Westside Basin Aquifer 
water level issues. Mr. Milstein reports that engineering 
studies conducted by Luhdorff & Scalmanini, geologist 
and hydrologist consultants who have subcontracted with 
the City's outside groundwater counsel, Ellison, Schneider 
& Harris, have developed a "conceptual model" of the 
subsurface geology beneath Lake Merced which concludes 
that the decline in Lake Merced water levels are due to 
decades of groundwater pumping by Daly City, three local 
golf clubs (the Olympic Club, the San Francisco Golf Club 
and the Lake Merced Golf Club) and other groundwater 
users in the Westside Basin Aquifer in Northern San 
Mateo County. Mr. Milstein reports that over time, this 
pumping has resulted in a depression in the groundwater 
levels in the deep aquifer segment beneath Daly City. 

The proposed Aquifer Recharge Study would examine 
ways for the PUC to use the available subsurface space to 
store water while simultaneously implementing a solution 
to the decline in Lake Merced water levels. Mr. Milstein 
advises that Luhdorff & Scalmanini would conduct the 
proposed Aquifer Recharge Study, under an existing 
subcontract between Ellison, Schneider & Harris and 
Luhdorff & Scalmanini. The costs of the proposed Aquifer 
Recharge Study, which are estimated at $35,000, would 
be funded from the appropriation for the Lake Merced 
Project of $2,000,000 previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the PUC's FY 2001-2002 budget. Ms. 
Marite Moore of the City Attorney's Office advises that, to 
date, $377,077 of the $2,000,000 appropriation has been 
expended on outside legal counsel and expert 
groundwater services related to the Westside Basin 
Aquifer and Lake Merced water levels. Therefore, 
$1,622,923 of the $2,000,000 appropriation is available 
for expenditure (see File 02-0554). The Budget Analyst 
notes that, under File 02-0554, the PUC would contribute 
$1,000,000 from the $2,000,000 appropriation towards the 
$6,000,000 in capital costs of a tertiary recycled water 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

facility to be built by Daly City and the North San Mateo 
County Sanitation District. 

3. Mr. Milstein advises that the implementation of a 
conjunctive use water program would involve further 
study, including the development of conceptual designs 
needed to inject and store available drinking water from 
the PUC system and the development of recycled water 
supplies to replace irrigation pumping to preserve the 
Westside Basin Aquifer for drinking water purposes (see 
File 02-0554). Mr. Milstein advises that recycled water is 
treated in accordance with State health regulations for 
unrestricted reuse for irrigation and other purposes that 
do not require potable w r ater (treated water fit for 
drinking). 

4. According to Mr. Milstein, the PUC currently needs 
additional water storage space. Mr. Milstein advises that 
if the subject proposed Aquifer Recharge Study reveals 
that excess drinking water can be stored in the Westside 
Basin Aquifer, the PUC would enter into separate 
agreements with Daly City and the PUC's other wholesale 
customers, including the California Water Service 
Company serving South San Francisco and the City of 
San Bruno, which are located above the Westside Basin 
Aquifer, for use of such storage space. Such agreements 
would be subject to Board of Supervisors approval, 
according to Mr. Milstein. Mr. Milstein further advises 
that storing water in the Westside Basin Aquifer would be 
economical because such a practice would increase the 
PUC's storage capacity without the necessity of building 
new reservoirs. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



City and County o^ San Francisco 



Dennis J. HerreRa 
City Attorney 




Attachment I 
Page 1 of 4 

Office of the City attorney 
joshua d. milstein 

Deputy City Attorney 

Direct Dial: |41S) 554-4211 

E-Mail: JOSHUA_D_MILST=lN £>ci.;!.ca.us 



MEMORANDUM 
PRIVILEGED &. CONFIDENTIAL 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budge; Analyst's Office 

FROM: Joshua D. Milstein 

Deputy City Attorney 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract; (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City. 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 

At your request I provide the following background memo on the above referenced Board 
actions. 

Lake Merced and the Westside Basin Aquifer: On January 31, 2001, California Trout 
("Cal Trout") filed a petition at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) asking the 
Board and five other state agencies to force a settlement of longstanding groundwater pumping 
disputes in the Westside Basin to protect and restore Lake Merced. Cal Trout named as 
respondents (defendants) all of the municipal and irrigation pumpers in the Westside Basin, 
including the City of San Francisco; Daly City; California Water Service Company; San Bruno; 
and numerous golf courses and cemeteries that use groundwater for irrigation purposes. San 
Francisco has also been asked to assist in furthering a settlement. These irrigators generally have 
so-called "overlying rights" to pump water associated with land ownership, while the municipal 
entities distribute water throughout their service areas under "appropriative" water right theory, 
which allows distribution of water away from the parcel where water is pumped. Generally 
speaking, the State of California does not regulate groundwater pumping through a water right 
license system, as is the case for most surface water supplies derived from streams and lakes. 

The Westside Basin extends south from Golden Gate Park through the Sunset District to 
Lake Merced, and then runs southeast through Daly City, Colma and San Bruno towards the San 
Francisco Airport. The Cal Trout petition seeks to force the entities using groundwater from the 
Westside Basin to take control of groundwater management through the development of recycled 
water and conjunctive use programs in the basin. "Conjunctive use" refers to the coordinated 
development of surface and groundwater supplies to prevent overdraft of aquifers and to make 
optimal use of available water supplies. 

In response to the petition, staff from the SFPUC, lawyers from this office and outside 
water counsel have participated in several confidential mediation sessions between Daly City, 
the three private Lake Merced area golf clubs, and San Francisco. The mediation effort got its 
start through litigation we filed against Daly City and the Olympic Club concerning the January 
1998 overflow of the Vista Grande Canal, which damaged John Muir Drive and a fishing pier at 
Lake Merced. The underlying roadway damage litigation has been settled. The mediation 

:390 Ma^ftSt-.cE!. Sun; 4i6- San Francisco. California 94102 
RecE'Tion: (4 15] £54-3900 OR (415) 554-6765 • Facsimile: (415) 554-5793 



An 



•^ u d *&& Attachment I 

Page 2 of 4 

City and County of San Francisco Office of the City attorney 

Memorandum 
Privileged & Confidential 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst's Office 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

PAGE: 2 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract: (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 



continues to resolve the greater water resource issues affecting Lake Merced and the Westside 
Basin aquifer. In general, our efforts have focused on three types of projects: stormwater 
addition, recycled water, and a conjunctive use program. The two items before the Board deal 
with the last two of these project areas. 

Storm Water: Last year the SFPUC approved a two year study of adding stormwater 
from the Daly City area (Vista Grande Canal) to Lake Merced. Under the first phase of this 
program, a small treatment device is now being installed by Daly City near the entrance to the 
Vista Grande tunnel. The device will not be installed to permit Daly City to add stormwater to 
the lake at this time. Rather, the device will treat small quantities of stormwater and return them 
to the canal. Tnis real-time operating experience can then be used to design a project for the full 
scale addition of stormwater to Lake Merced, assuming water quality concerns can be addressed. 
The full scale project will cost over 55 million and the relative apportionment of costs between 
Daly City and San Francisco has not been determined. We believe that adding clean stormwater 
represents one of the most viable, cost effective actions needed to raise Lake Merced water 
levels. 

Recycled Water: The recycled water contract before the Board between the golf clubs, 
Daly City and the SFPUC is for a supply of recycled water from Daly City to replace up to 85% 
of golf course irrigation pumpage. Recycled water can be used for non-potable purposes such as 
irrigation, and the water to be provided is treated at the "tertiary" level, meaning that use for 
irrigation is basically unrestricted if the system is designed and operated to produce water in 
accordance with State Department of Health Services regulations. The SFPUC is contributing SI 
million towards the capital cost of this project in exchange for injection and recovery well sites 
on each of the three clubs funded from the 52 million set aside in the PUC's budget to address 
the Lake Merced issues. 

The well sites to be acquired as pan of the recycled water contract may be used as part of 
a future conjunctive use program whereby imported surface water will be injected into the 
aquifer for later recovery during droughts and emergencies. As such, the well sites would be 
considered "joint" assets under the 1984 Master Water Sales Contract with the suburban water 
purchasers, meaning that when the well sites are placed in service, the suburbs will ultimately 
pay approximately 2/3 of the SI million asset cost based on their percentage of water used from 
the SFPUC system. Under the 1984 Master Water Contract, such joint facilities are paid for on 
the basis of how much water is used; the suburbs currently use about 2/3 of the totaJ SFPUC 
supply, hence they will wind up paying 2/3 of the cost of the asset and infrastructure needed to 
pay for the conjunctive use program. 

At the request of Cal Trout the SFPUC agreed that these wells would not be used to 
pump water formerW pumped by the golf courses except in dire emergencies or it subsequent 
technical work reveals that such pumping is necessary. The agreement will enable Daly City to 
obtain State grant funds for much of the project cost. The golf clubs agreed to more than double 
their water costs as part of this historic agreement. 

41 



£3/10 -d 



' Attachment I 

Page 3 of 4 

City and County of San Francisco Office of the City Attorney 

Memorandum 
Privileged & Confidential 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst's Office 

DATE: April 15.2002 

PAGE: 3 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract; (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 

Conjunctive Use Program: Daly City, like each of the other 25 wholesale water 
customers of the SFPUC, has an "individual water supply contract" with the SFPUC for purchase 
of drinking water from the SFPUC water system. These individual contracts were signed 
contemporaneously with the 1984 Master Water Sales Agreement and generally specify the 
service area and connection locations of the individual customers. 

The contract amendment before the Board would amend Daly City's individual water 
supply contract with the SFPUC to allow Daly City to take delivery of surplus imported water 
(from the SFPUC water system) and reduce its pumping by a like amount. During this period the 
resultant change in aquifer water storage levels will be studied by our experts for use in devising 
a basin-wide conjunctive use program. We have accordingly invited the California Water 
Service Company and the City of San Bruno (both wholesale water customers of the SFPUC) to 
participate in the ongoing mediation sessions, and anticipate that similar study arrangements will 
be reached with these utilities. Ultimately, the SFPUC will work with these wholesale customers 
to devise a major conjunctive use program for the Westside Basin, primarily in north San Mateo 
County because that is where the available storage is located. 

The conjunctive use aspect of the program has been designed as a study because more 
information is necessary before a basin-wide conjunctive use program can be devised. Such a 
program will require millions of dollars of investment by the City and the suburban water users, 
and realistically creates one of the most environmentally sound and economical ways of 
increasing water storage for use during droughts and emergencies. Conjunctive use of aquifers 
has long been recognized as an economical way to store water; because no new reservoirs are 
required, conjunctive use has generally been favorably received by resource agencies and 
interested environmental groups. Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the SFPUC would be 
required to investigate all feasible alternatives to constructing additional surface water reservoirs, 
including conjunctive use programs in the SFPUC water service area. Such studies are critical to 
implementation of the SFPUC capital program to the extent that the program contemplates 
expansion of the SFPUC water system. To sum up, developing a conjunctive use program in the 
Westside Basin would benefit the SFPUC water system because it would result in the storage of 
water that could be easily accessed during an emergency or drought that could restrict the 
imports of surface water to the northern Peninsula by the SFPUC. 

The full scale conjunctive use program, if implemented, will require a large investment in 
facilities and staff which cannot be determined at this time but which will be the subject of 
intensive negotiations between the SFPUC and the suburbs. The agreements arising out of these 
negotiations will be subject to Board approval. 

Ongoing Technical Work: Our groundwater experts, Luhdorff & Scalmanini, have 
installed 7 shallow monitoring wells around Lake Merced and one at Pine Mountain Lake. Their 
work has progressed to the point that several conclusions can be reached: 



42 



~c j a bff r t. 



SP'd "IblOl 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 4 

Office of the City attorney 



Memorandum 
Privileged L Confidential 

TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst's Office 

DATE: April 15, 2002 

PAGE: 4 

RE: Background on Board Resolutions: (1) Proposed Conjunctive Use Study 

Amendment to Daly City Water Contract; (2) Recycled Water Agreement Between 
Daly City, 3 Lake Merced Area Golf Clubs, and San Francisco PUC 



1. Lake Merced is part of the shallow aquifer and the water in the lake is actually the 
water table level in this shallow aquifer. 

2. Past work by the City contained several errors, most notably in the surface elevations 
of wells that led to the conclusion that there was a groundwater depression west of Lake Merced 
towards the ocean. This is not the case, and water continues to flow from the lake (subsurface) 
towards the ocean. 

3. The likelihood of seawater intrusion is slim due to the underlying geology. Even 
though the water levels in Daly City's deeper aquifer wells are 100 feet or more below sea level, 
the upturned clay strata beneath the Olympic Club (visible in the cliffs near Fort Funston) 
combined with the shallow continental shelf makes it unlikely that sea water intrusion will occur 
directly west of Daly City. The only place identified as a potential corridor for seawater 
intrusion is near the historic Lake Merced outlet in the Zoo, and in this area ( and in San 
Francisco north to and including Golden Gate Park), wells have not been pumped to levels below 
sea level. Over the next several months additional deep monitoring wells will be installed by 
Daly City to further analyze the salt/freshwater interface in this portion of the Westside Basin. 

4. Decades-long groundwater pumping by Daly City and others to the south has created a 
reversed gradient in the deeper aquifer such that the shallow water table aquifer that comprises 
the Lake now tends to slowly migrate towards Daly City, in addition to the continuation of some 
outflow towards the ocean near the San Francisco Zoo. Today the North Lake is higher in 
surface elevation than the South Lake, which is higher than Impound Lake. So although 
pumping has no direct effect on Lake Merced (the shallow monitoring wells show no impact 
from deeper pumping), such pumping has indirectly lowered the water levels in the shallow 
aquifer because the clay layers apparently are discontinuous beneath the Westlake Area of Daly 
City. Cessation of pumping for decades or generations would not eliminate the tendency of the 
lake to be drawn towards the pumping depression to the south. If the available underground 
storage space is to be used, a separate program of adding water to Lake Merced must be devised. 

5. The available storage space beneath Daly City and other parts of the aquifer to the 
south represent a very valuable asset for the SFPUC water system, which needs such water 
storage. Lake Merced needs to be managed separately, basically by finding sources of water to 
add to the Lake on a more or less continuous basis. This will require continuation of efforts to 
add stormwater to the Lake, and ultimately may include the use of recycled water from San 
Francisco's Oceanside treatment plant. 

If you have any further questions please give me a call. I will be available at the Finance 
Committee Hearing to answer any Board member questions on this complicated subject. 



J.D.M. 



M. Carlin 
T. Lakey 



V. Clayton 



43 



Q/SQ-d 






FPU, 




San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission 

Bureau of Finance 

1155 Market St., 5 th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103 




MEMORANDUM 



DATE: MAY 9, 2002 

TO: Joshua D. Milstein, Deputy City Attorney 

FROM: William H. laws, Rate Administrator 

SUBJECT: COST OF WATER 



In response to your request, I have analyzed the San Francisco Water Enterprise's cost of 
water to determine the cost of water delivered to suburban resale customers. The cost of 
water includes expenses for source of supply, pumping, treatment, and pipeline 
transmission. I have not included administrative and general expenses or the costs 
associated with the in-city water distribution system in my analysis. I have also excluded 
the Hetch Hetchy assessment that is a fixed payment made by the Water Enterprise for the 
operation and maintenance of dams, reservoirs, tunnels, pipeline and other water related 
facilities under the control of Hetch Hetchy. 

The various costs of the water system serving suburban resale customers has been 
identified as being a fixed operating expense, a variable operating expense, or a 
maintenance expense. Fixed operating expenses are costs such as supervision, engineering, 
and other labor costs that tend to be constant over a wide operating range. For example, 
the water treatment plants have sufficient staff to operate the plant to its maximum 
capacity therefore Water Enterprise would not be required to add staff to increase the 
amount water treated. There are other operating costs such as treatment chemicals and 
power that vary directly with the amount of water treated. Those costs are identified as 
being variable operating expenses. Maintenance expenses fall in a gray area. It can be 
argued that addition water production causes more wear and tear on facilities and 
maintenance costs should be included as a component of the marginal cost of production. 
An analysis of past expenditures for maintenance, however, does not indicate that the Water 
Enterprise adjusts its maintenance activities for the quantity of water treated. 

Based on the actual expenditures for FY 2000-01, the average variable operating cost is 
$0.0303 per Ccf. The average maintenance cost is $0.0549 per Ccf. Because variable 
operating costs vary directly with the quantity of water treated, the marginal cost can be 
assumed to be equal to average cost. Not all maintenance costs vary with the quantity of 
water treated. Certain maintenance activities such as maintenance of grounds and pipeline 
rights-of-way are not affect by the quantity of water treated. Equipment, on the other 
hand, may require more frequent maintenance as the quantity of water treated increases. 
In lieu of a detailed study of maintenance costs, I am assuming the average maintenance is 
upper limit estimate for marginal cost of maintenance. Based on the foregoing, I believe 
the marginal cost of water is within a range from $0.0303 per Ccf to $0.0852 per Ccf. 

Attachment 



44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 02-0755 

Department: Employees' Retirement System 

Item: Ordinance amending Section 16.61-5 of the 

Administrative Code to authorize the Employees' 
Retirement System to accept transfers from non-qualified 
tax plans for buybacks. 

Description: Currently, members of the Employees' Retirement System 

who withdraw from the System or who elect to pay 
reduced employee retirement contributions to the 
Employees' Retirement System can buy back their full 
retirement benefits through making cash payments, 
payroll deductions or "rollovers" from tax qualified 
retirement plans. Section 16.61-5 of the Administrative 
Code authorizes the Employees' Retirement System to 
accept member rollovers, the nontaxable transfer of assets 
between tax sheltered vehicles, from only tax qualified 
accounts consisting of 401(k), 403(b), 401(a), and 
Individual Retirement Accounts, as payment for buying 
back member retirement benefits. 

As described in the attached letter from Ms. Clare 
Murphy, Executive Director of the Employees' Retirement 
System, presently Employees' Retirement System 
members can make payments to the Employees' 
Retirement System for buy backs through three methods, 
including: 1) a check with after tax dollars, 2) payroll 
deductions, or 3) rollovers from qualified tax plans. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Section 16.61-5 of 
the Administrative Code, to provide for a fourth payment 
method for member buy backs. The proposed ordinance 
would provide for transfers from deferred compensation 
plans (Internal Revenue Section 457). These plans are 
non-qualified tax plans. According to Ms. Murphy, the 
transfer from deferred compensation plans was not a 
buyback method payment option prior to this proposed 
ordinance, and is only now being proposed as a result of 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax reform. According to 
Ms. Murphy, a non-qualified tax plan is an IRS category 
for retirement plans containing different IRS tax 
provisions than qualified tax plans including allowing the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



withdrawal of funds from non-qualified deferred 
compensation plans at no penalty prior to the age of 59. 

1. Ms. Murphy reports that providing for transfers from 
deferred compensation plans would allow members to pay 
for a buyback by transferring monies from their non- 
qualified tax plans, or deferred compensation accounts. 
According to Ms. Murphy, over 20,000 Employees' 
Retirement System members have non-qualified deferred 
compensation plans. 



2. As shown in the attached letter, Ms. Murphy states 
that this proposed amendment to the Administrative 
Code "will not effect the cost of the San Francisco 
Employees' Retirement System because it does not change 
plan benefits; it only allows an alternative payment 
method". 



Recommendations: 



Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco 




San Francisco City ancf bounty 
Employees 9 Retirement System 
Office of The Executive Director 



May 16, 2002 



Finance Committee 
Supervisor Aaron Peskin, Chair 
Supervisor Chris Daly, Vice Chair 
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, Member 
Board of Supervisors 
City Hall, Room 244 
#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: File No. 020755 [Pension Buy-Backs-Rollovers/Transfers] 

Ordinance authorizing the Retirement System to accept rollovers and transfers from 
qualified and non-qualified tax plans for buybacks. 



Dear Supervisors Peskin, Daly and Maxwell, 

Administrative Code section 16.61-5 currently provides for the Retirement System to 
accept rollovers from tax qualified accounts as a means for members to purchase service credit 
or repay debts to the Retirement System. This proposed amendment extends the authority of the 
Retirement System to accept transfers from non-qualified tax plans. 

Background 

The Congress passed and the President signed EGTRRA (Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act) in August of 2001. In part, this law allowed monies sheltered in 
Internal Revenue Code 457 Deferred Compensation plans to be transferred to pension plans for 
the purchase of qualified service credit and payment of debts. The State of California legislature 
passed three bills, which brought California Tax Law into conformity with federal law in April 
and the Governor signed the bills May 8, 2002. 

Members of the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System are: 

1 . able to purchase service credit for periods of temporary service (prior service), 
military leave, representative service and 

2. able to repay account balances previously withdrawn (redeposit) and or pay the 
amount necessary to bring the member's account to the level it would have been had 
the member paid full, rather than reduced contributions (shortages). 

Currently members may make purchases by 

1 . check with after tax dollars 

2. payroll deductions with either before or after tax withholding 

3. rollovers from tax qualified plans (401a, 401k, 403b, IRAs, etc.) 



(415)487-7020 



30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3000 
47 



San Francisco, CA 94102 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Cost 

This proposed amendment will not effect the cost of the San Francisco Employees' Retirement 

System because it does not change plan benefits; it only allows an alternative payment method. 

Rationale 

Given the change in State and Federal tax law, the existence of qualified purchasable service and 
the fact that over 20,000 San Francisco City & County employees participate in the San 
Francisco Deferred Compensation Plan; this proposed amendment to the existing ordinance is 
timely and important to San Francisco Employees' Retirement System participants. Adding the 
authority to accept transfers from non-qualified plans will allow San Francisco City & County 
employees to transfer money from their deferred compensation accounts to enhance their pension 
benefits, by creating an additional payment option, which provides positive current tax benefits. 

The Retirement System experiences a high volume of retirements at the close of each fiscal year, 
expeditious passage of this ordinance amendment will allow pending retirees the opportunity to 
execute a non-taxable transfer from their San Francisco Deferred Compensation Plan account to 
complete a buyback and enhance their pension. Thank you for your recommendation for 
passage of this no cost benefit. 



Very truly yours 



U 



Clare M. Murphy 
Executive Director 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 02-0471 

Department: Rent Arbitration Board (Rent Board) 

Item: Ordinance amending Administrative Code Chapter 37A 

"Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Fee" by 
amending Sections 37A.2 and 37A.6 to increase the 
maximum annual residential rent ordinance fee. 

Description: The owner of all residential rental units in the City, with 

the exception of specific non-profit entities, residential 
care facilities, Section 8 housing, Ellis Act exempted units 
and residential units constructed since June of 1979, is 
required under Chapter 37A of the Administrative Code 
to pay an annual Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Fee 
for each unit. The fee for each rental unit is calculated 
annually by determining the total projected annual cost of 
funding the Rent Arbitration Board divided by the total 
number of rental units estimated to pay the fee. 
Currently, the annual fee cannot exceed $16 per rental 
unit. 

The proposed ordinance would increase the maximum 
annual fee for each rental unit to $27 per unit annually, 
an $11 or 68.8 percent increase over the current $16 
annual fee. Chapter 37A stipulates that residential hotel 
units pay a fee which is one-half of the fee for residential 
rental units. As a result, under the proposed ordinance, 
the annual fee for each residential hotel unit would 
increase from $8, to $13.50 per unit, a $5.50 or 68.8 
percent increase. In accordance with the ordinance, the 
Controller is responsible for determining the total number 
of residential units and calculating the fee by July 31 of 
each year. The annual fees are then included on the 
Property Tax bills that are sent to each property owner 
during the Fall, to be remitted by December 10 of each 
year. 

Chapter 3TA currently states that the owners of rental 
units (including residential hotel units) may seek recovery 
of the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Fee from the 
tenant in occupancy of the residential unit on November 
1 st of each year and outlines the specific procedures for 
recovery of these annual fees. Under the current 
ordinance, the owner of the rental unit is limited to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22. 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

seeking a maximum of $16 from the tenant for the Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Fee. The proposed 
ordinance provides that the owner of the rental unit may 
recover up to a maximum of $27 from the tenant for the 
Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Fee. The proposed 
ordinance also states that the owner remains liable for 
the full payment of the annual fee to the City's Tax 
Collector whether or not the owner seeks any recovery or 
receives any portion of the fee from the tenant. 

Therefore, under the proposed ordinance, the annual 
residential fee to be paid by the owner would increase 
from $16 to $27 in FY 2002-03 and the fee that the owner 
would be permitted to recover would similarly increase 
from a maximum of $16 to $27 from the tenant per unit. 
All of these annual Rent Board Fees are deposited into 
the Rent Arbitration Board Special Revenue Fund and 
monies expended from this Fund are subject to Board of 
Supervisors appropriation approval. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Joe Grubb, Executive Director of the Rent Board, 

states that the Rent Board is proposing to increase the 
Rent Board fees from $16 per unit to $27 per unit, to 
cover additional labor and operational expenses for the 
Rent Board which has resulted from several factors. Mr. 
Grubb reports that the Rent Board is proposing a FY 
2002-2003 budget of $4,322,789, which is $1,267,503 more 
than the Department's FY 2001-2002 budget of 
$3,055,286. 

2. According to Mr. Grubb, one of the primary reason for 
the requested fee increase is due to Proposition H, which 
was approved by the San Francisco voters on November 7, 
2000. Mr. Grubb advises that the Rent Board's caseload 
was substantially reduced after Proposition H was 
approved, because Proposition H prohibited the Rent 
Board from processing capital improvement passthrough 
filings. Mr. Grubb advises that such capital improvement 
passthrough filings had previously represented 
approximately one-third of all filings received by the Rent 
Board. However, although the Rent Board was prohibited 
from processing such petitions after Proposition H was 
approved, Mr. Grubb reports that owners continued filing 
petitions and the Rent Board was required to accept such 
petitions for capital improvement passthroughs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



San Francisco landlords subsequently filed a lawsuit 
against Proposition H, which resulted in the reversal of 
Proposition H and now the Rent Board is required again 
to begin processing these capital improvement 
passthrough filings. Mr. Grubb reports that the Rent 
Board currently has accumulated over 600 owner and 
tenant initiated petitions for such passthroughs of capital 
improvements and tenant issues. Mr. Grubb advises that 
the Rent Board will be requesting an additional 3.0 FTE 
temporary 8176 Administrative Law Judges in their FY 
2002-2003 budget to address this backlog of petitions. 

According to Mr. Grubb, it is unclear what the workload 
will be for the Rent Board in future years. However, Mr. 
Grubb advises that if the requested 3.0 FTE temporary 
positions are approved in the FY 2002-2003 budget, he 
estimates that it will take approximately two years to 
eliminate the existing backlog of capital improvement 
passthrough petitions. Mr. Grubb advises that when the 
Rent Board has eliminated this backlog of petitions and 
determined the amount of increased work resulting from 
the proposed other legislation, discussed below, the Rent 
Board will reevaluate the level of staffing, determine 
whether the temporary positions continue to be necessary 
and recalculate the required annual Rent Board fees. 

3. In addition, Mr. Grubb advises that two ordinances 
recently approved by the Board of Supervisors will further 
increase the workload of the Rent Board. One ordinance 
(Ordinance 57-02), approved on May 3, 2002, which will 
become effective on June 2, 2002, will require the Rent 
Board to record all owner move-in eviction notices with 
the County Recorder. Mr. Grubb reports that between 730 
to 1,000 such move-in eviction notices occur annually and 
the Department has requested one FTE 1424 Clerk Typist 
in the FY 2002-2003 budget to address this additional 
work. 

In addition. Ordinance 62-02 which was also approved on 
May 3, 2002 and will become effective on June 2, 2002, 
requires the Rent Board Commission to review any 
changes to the City's Residential Hotel Visitor policies 
and for Rent Board staff to adjudicate any issues and 
disputes relating to such policies. Mr. Grubb advises that 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



although he has not requested any additional dedicated 
staff for this additional work, he anticipates that the 
above-noted 3.0 FTE Temporary Administrative Law 
Judges would be available to handle such additional 
responsibilities. 

4. Mr. Grubb also advises that recently proposed 
legislation (File 02-0716), which would amend the City's 
Rent Control Ordinance regarding permissible 
passthroughs from landlords to residential tenants of 
certain bond costs, and costs for capital improvements, 
rehabilitation, energy conservation improvements, and 
renewable energy improvements would add further 
responsibilities and costs for the Department. Mr. Grubb 
states that the Rent Board has therefore requested in 
their FY 2002-2003 budget additional Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) 
assistance to develop a webpage at an estimated cost of 
$15,000 and related database modifications at an 
estimated cost of $12,000 as well as an additional $60,000 
to contract for community outreach services to advise the 
public regarding the new provisions in this proposed 
legislation. The Budget Analyst notes that the subject 
legislation (File 02-0716) is currently pending in the 
Health and Human Services Committee of the Board of 
Supervisors. 

5. The Board of Supervisors approved a one-year Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Fee increase from $16 to 
$19 for FY 2000-2001 only, in order to eliminate the Rent 
Board's backlog of hearings at that time. Mr. Grubb 
advises that the Rent Board residential per unit fee was 
increased from $10 to $16, a 60 percent increase, in June 
of 1999, approximately three years ago. 

6. Ms. Maria Taylor of the Controller's Office reports that 
m FY 2001-2002, the Rent Board will receive an 
estimated $2,907,880 in revenue from the current annual 
fee of $16 per residential unit. Ms. Taylor states that in 
FY 2000-2001, the Rent Board received approximately 
$3,538,128 in revenue from the annual fees of $19 per 
residential unit. These revenues include the fees received 
from residential hotel units, which are subject to one-half 
of the fees charged to each residential rental unit. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Ms. Taylor reports that the Controller's Office projects 
Rent Board Fee revenue of $4,725,000 for FY 2002-2003, 
assuming an estimated 175,000 residential units at the 
proposed new fee of $27 per residential unit, based on 
past year revenues, a two percent delinquency factor, 
residential hotel units and the historic rate of decline in 
the total number of units subject to the fee. Mr. Grubb 
advises that the number of residential units in the City 
are declining, due to owner move-in evictions and Ellis 
Act evictions, which permit property owners to evict 
tenants, if the residential unit that is occupied by the 
tenant will be permanently removed from the rental 
market. 

7. As noted above, Mr. Grubb advises that the Rent Board 
is proposing a FY 2002-2003 budget of $4,322,789, which 
is $1,267,503 more than the Department's FY 2001-2002 
budget of $3,055,286. Therefore, the Rent Board's 
proposed FY 2002-2003 budget request of $4,322,789, is 
$402,211 less than the Controller's projections for 
$4,725,000 of revenue from the proposed increased fee 
level of $27 per residential rental unit. 

8. The Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed 
ordinance be continued and transferred to the Budget 
Committee to be heard when the Rent Arbitration Board's 
budget is heard by the Budget Committee in June of 2002 
because (a) the proposed fee increase is partially based on 
pending legislation (File 02-0716) which would permit 
passthrough costs of certain bonds and capital 
improvements to be shared between landlords and 
tenants, that has not yet been approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and (b) the subject $27 fee is based on the 
Department's proposed increased FY 2002-2003 budget, 
which has not yet been reviewed by the Budget Analyst's 
Office or the Budget Committee. The Budget Analyst will 
be reviewing all of the requested budgetary increases in 
the forthcoming BY" 2002-2003 budget review process. 

Recommendation: Continue and transfer the proposed ordinance to the 

Budget Committee to be heard in June of 2002, together 
with the Rent Arbitration Board's proposed FY" 2002-2003 
budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 02-0675 

Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Public Works 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $150,000 for the Sloat Boulevard Median 
Island Landscape Improvements Project. 

$150,000 

Board of Supervisors addback of General Fund monies 
reserved in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001-2002 Department of 
Public Work's budget. 

During the FY 2001-2002 budget review, the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated and reserved $150,000 to the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) for a median island 
landscape improvements project in District 7. Such funds 
were placed on reserve pending submission to the Finance 
Committee of (1) a specific description of the median 
island landscape project, and (2) project budget details. 

The DPW has identified the median island landscape 
improvements project, located on Sloat Boulevard from 
21 st Avenue to Junipero Serra Boulevard. According to 
Mr. Mohammed Nuru of DPW, the existing landscaped 
median islands on Sloat Boulevard cover approximately 
25,000 square feet with current plantings consisting of 13 
Bushy Yate trees and a groundcover of Acacia Redolens. 
Mr. Nuru reports that DPW staff has removed significant 
portions of the Acacia because the Acacia has become 
overgrown and excessively high, causing traffic safety 
concerns over poor visibility. 

According to Mr. Nuru, the proposed Sloat Boulevard 
Median Island Landscape Improvements Project would 
replace the Acacia groundcover with a variety of drought 
tolerant, low growing, low maintenance groundcovers that 
would provide better visibility to motorists and require 
less maintenance by DPW staff. Mr. Nuru reports that the 
13 Bushy Yate trees would remain at their current sites, 
and the DPW would plant six additional Bushy Yate trees 
along the median islands. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The Attachment, provided by DPW. is a budget totaling 
$150,000 for the proposed Sloat Boulevard Median Island 
Landscape Improvements Project. 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



According to Mr. Sherman Horn of DPW, the landscape 
architecture design and construction management for the 
proposed project would be done by existing DPW staff at 
an estimated cost of $32,003. Mr. Horn reports that an 
outside contractor, to be selected through a competitive 
bid process, would complete the construction work at an 
estimated cost of $117,997. Mr. Horn further reports that 
the construction work portion of the subject project would 
be put out to competitive bid in August of 2002 and a 
contractor would be selected by October of 2002. 
According to Mr. Horn, DPW anticipates that the proposed 
Sloat Boulevard Median Island Landscape Improvements 
Project will be completed by January of 2003. 

Approve the requested release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $150,000. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

55 



Attachment 



E 3 

a y 
en 2 



E 2 

Sl- 
ip 

2 S § 
a. o o 



56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 8. 9 and 10 - Files 02-0708. 02-0709. and 02-0704 



Departments: 



Items: 



Administrative Services Department, Real Estate 
Division (RED) 
Sheriffs Department 

File 02-0708: Resolution authorizing a new lease of 
18,862 square feet of space at 1740 Folsom Street for the 
Sheriffs Department to consolidate training facilities. 

File 02-0709: Resolution authorizing a new sublease of 
4,997 square feet of space at 555 7 th Street to the San 
Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project. 

File 02-0704: Ordinance appropriating $351,858 from FY 
2001-02 Federal funding for housing prisoners for one- 
time expenses associated with moving the Sheriffs 
training functions to 1740 Folsom Street. 



File 02-0708: 1740 Folsom Street 



Location: 



The entire building at 1740 Folsom Street, and the 
contiguous parking lot at 120 14 th Street which can 
accommodate 15 vehicles. 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



Term of Lease: 



To provide space for the Sheriffs Department for a 
consolidated training facility for up to 180 trainees at a 
time, which can also be used for emergency command 
purposes. Emergency command is a chain of command 
structure which manages a natural or man-made 
emergency or City-wide event when the Sheriff needs to 
deploy his resources to respond, according to Ms. Jean 
Mariani of the Sheriffs Department. 

Mark Nelson Development, Limited Liability Company, 
and New California Land Company 

City and County of San Francisco, for use by the Sheriffs 
Department. 

Ten years, commencing upon substantial completion of 
tenant improvements (estimated to be July 1, 2002) and 
expiring on June 30, 2012. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Cost Per Month: 18.862 square feet at a base monthly rate of $31,436.67 

(approximately $1.67 per square foot per month), totaling 
$377,240 ($20.00 per square foot per year) for each of the 
first five years of the proposed lease. 

Beginning July 1, 2007, the sixth year of the proposed 
lease, there will be a one-time increase in the base rent 
based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco- 
Oakland-San Jose area since 2002, with a minimum 
increase of 15 percent to $433,826 per year, and a 
maximum increase of 30 percent to $490,412 per year. 

Right of Renewal: Two additional terms of five years each. Each five-year 

option to extend would adjust the base rent to 95 percent 
of the then prevailing market rental rate for similar 
premises as determined by the Lessor based on at least 
five recent comparable lease transactions. If the City 
disputes the Lessor's determination of the prevailing 
market rental rate, the City can propose its own 
prevailing market rental rate. If the Lessor and the City 
still disagree, they shall each select one commercial real 
estate agent who will in turn select a third real estate 
agent to choose between the Lessor's or the City's 
determination of the prevailing market rental rate. 

Right of First Refusal: The City has first right of refusal in the event the Lessor 

decides to sell 1740 Folsom Street building. 

Utilities, Maintenance, 

Repair, and Janitorial 

Services: The City will pay for electricity, gas, and water at an 

estimated annual cost of $27,400. The Lessor will provide 
maintenance, repair, and janitorial services at no 
additional cost to the City. 

Tenant Improvements: The total estimated tenant improvement costs to be fully 

paid by the City are $221,104 comprising: 

(a) $41,104 for the construction of two locker rooms, a 
moveable wall between two classrooms, and a 
training prison cell. 

(b) $30,000 for an existing three-day back-up generator 
and associated equipment which is located outside 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the 1740 Folsom Street building in the parking lot. 
According to Mr. Charlie Dunn of RED, due to the 
power outages experienced by San Francisco in the 
last year, back-up generators have substantial 
market value. The Lessor, in consultation with the 
generator's original vendor, has valued this 
generator at $30,000. The Lessor was not prepared 
to include the generator in the rental rate, 
(c) $150,000 for the purchase and installation of 
telephone equipment by the Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services 
(DTIS). 

All permanently installed tenant improvements will 
belong to the Lessor. The Lessor will be responsible for 
the maintenance costs related to the generator. The City 
will be responsible for all generator operating costs. 

Source of Funds: As shown in the proposed budget under File 02-0704 

below, the Sheriffs Department has estimated total one- 
time tenant improvement, moving, equipment purchase, 
DTIS work order, and RED work order costs of $351,858 
associated with moving the Sheriffs training functions to 
1740 Folsom Street. The source of funds for these one- 
time costs would be the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, 
Federal Department of Justice, FY 2001-02 funding for 
housing prisoners (File 02-0704). 

The source of funds for the ongoing annual rent and 
utilities costs of 1740 Folsom Street would be included in 
the Sheriffs Department's annual General Fund budgets. 

Description: Currently, the Sheriffs Department's training functions 

for new uniformed personnel are located at three separate 
facilities: (a) the City-owned building at 555 7 th Street; 
(b) the City-owned building at 30 Van Ness Avenue; and 
the Treasure Island Brig leased by the Sheriffs 
Department from the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. The proposed lease of 1740 Folsom Street 
under File 02-0708 would permit the Department to 
consolidate its training functions, which are presently 
provided at those three facilities, into one location with 
more appropriate classroom spaces, according to Ms. 
Mariani. 1740 Folsom Street contains a 10,110 square 
foot training space. According to Ms. Mariani, the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Sheriffs Department hires and trains 79 new Deputies 
each year, and the 764 sworn personnel in the Sheriffs 
Department receive a minimum of 24 hours of in-service 
and refresher training each year. 

Furthermore, because 1740 Folsom Street meets the 
City's latest seismic codes and has a three-day back-up 
generator, 1740 Folsom Street would also be used for 
emergency command purposes when such a function is 
necessary for the Sheriffs Department, as stated in the 
Attachment to this report. While the Sheriffs 
Department participates in emergency response 
coordination activities at the City's Combined Emergency 
Communications Center located at 1011 Turk Street, the 
Sheriffs Department also requires an emergency 
command post to coordinate its own tasks during 
emergencies or large-scale events, as stated in the 
Attachment. At present, the Department uses classroom 
space at 555 7 th Street as an emergency situation 
command post. The Attachment explains wiry this 
arrangement is unsatisfactory for the Sheriff. 

The City-owned 555 7 th Street space to be vacated bj r the 
Sheriffs Department would be occupied by the San 
Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project (File 02-0709). The 
City-owned 30 Van Ness Avenue space to be vacated by 
the Sheriffs Department would be occupied by the Ethics 
Commission (see Comment No. 3). The lease with the 
Treasure Island Development Authority for the Treasure 
Island Brig expires on June 30, 2002 (see Comment No. 
4). 



File 02-0709: 555 7 th Street 

Location: 555 7 th Street, Suite 210, which has six parking stalls. 

Purpose of Sublease: To provide space for the San Francisco Pre-Trial 

Diversion Project. 

Lessor: City and Countv of San Francisco, acting bv and through 

RED. 

Sub-lessee: The San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project, a 501(c)3 

non-profit agency which, in FY 2001-2002, was 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

approximately 40.9 percent funded by the Sheriffs 
Department. In FY 2001-2002, the San Francisco Pre- 
Trial Diversion Project received (a) $685,795 in General 
Fund monies from the Sheriffs Department, and (b) 
$989,061 from various Federal and State grants, program 
revenues, and client fees, for total funding of $1,674,856. 
According to Ms. Mariani, the San Francisco Pre-Trial 
Diversion Project was established 25 years ago to provide 
alternatives to incarceration for offenders currently in the 
Sheriffs custody. First-time non-violent offenders receive 
mentoring and community programs through the San 
Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project which would 
otherwise have to be provided by the Sheriffs 
Department. The Attachment provides further 

information about the role and funding of the San 
Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project. 

Term of Sublease: Two years commencing upon substantial completion of 

the tenant improvements for the Sheriffs Department at 
1740 Folsom Street, estimated to be on July 1, 2002, at 
which time the Sheriffs Department will move from 555 
7 th Street to 1740 Folsom Street, thereby making 
available 4,997 square feet of vacant space at 555 7 th 
Street into which the San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion 
Project would move. The sublease term expires on June 
30, 2004. 

Right of Renewal: Four options to extend the term for one year each, at a 

rent to be adjusted in accordance with the annual 
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban 
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco- 
Oakland-San Jose area. 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 

Cost Per Month: 4,997 square feet at a monthly rate of $12,492.50 ($2.50 

per square foot per month), totaling $149,910 ($30.00 per 
square foot per year) for each of the two years of the 
proposed sublease. The $30.00 per square foot per year 
comprises (a) $18.71 for base rent (approximately 62.4 
percent), plus (b) $11.29 for all utilities, janitorial 
services, and building operating costs (approximately 37.6 
percent). Therefore, the base monthly rent per square 
foot is approximately $1.56 excluding utilities, janitorial 
services, and building operating costs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Utilities, Janitorial 

Services, and 

Building Operating 

Costs: The cost of utilities, janitorial services, and building 

operating costs is included in the annual rent payable by 
the San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project to the City. 
The subject 4,997 square feet of 555 7 th Street represents 
approximately 16 percent of that building's total 32,000 
square footage. Therefore, the San Francisco Pre-Trial 
Diversion Project will be responsible for 16 percent of the 
increases in utilities, janitorial services, and building 
operating costs at 555 7 th Street above the FY 2002-2003 
base year ($11.29 per square foot per year). 

Tenant Improvements: None. 

Description: The proposed sublease of 555 7 th Street by the City 

through RED to the San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion 
Project would provide 4,997 square feet of the City-owned 
space at 555 7 th Street. This space is to be vacated by the 
Sheriffs Department if both this proposed sublease and 
the proposed lease of 1740 Folsom Street (File 02-0708) 
are approved. The memorandum of understanding 
between the Sheriffs Department and RED concerning 
the Sheriffs Department's occupancy of second floor space 
at 555 7 th Street includes the right for the Sheriffs 
Department to sublease that space. Under the proposed 
resolution, the Sheriffs Department would exercise that 
right to sublease by entering into the proposed sublease 
with the San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project. 

The San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project is 
currently located at 567 7 th Street and occupies 4,500 
square feet for 28 employees (an average of approximately 
160.7 square feet per employee). According to Ms. 
Mariani, 567 7 th Street only has a very small conference 
space. As stated in the Attachment, the San Francisco 
Pre-Trial Diversion Project proposes to sublease the 4,997 
square feet at 555 7 th Street due to its crowded conditions 
at 567 7 th Street. Therefore, the San Francisco Pre-Trial 
Diversion Project employees would increase to 9,497 
square feet for its 28 employees, including a 1,363 square 
foot conference room which can also be used as a 
classroom for program participants, resulting in an 
average of 290.5 square feet per employee, net of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



conference room. This represents an increase of 
approximately 129.8 square feet per employee, or 
approximately 80.8 percent. The San Francisco Pre-Trial 
Diversion Project will use the furniture already on-site. 

Ms. Mariani states in the Attachment that the proposed 
sub-lease would increase the Sheriffs Department's 
General Fund contribution to the San Francisco Pre-Trial 
Diversion Project by $9,910 in FY 2002-2003. 



F ile 02-0704: Supplemental Appropriation 
Amount: $351,858 



Source of Funds: 



Proposed Budget: 



U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Federal Department of 
Justice, revenues received by the City in FY 2001-2002 for 
housing prisoners. 

The Sheriffs Department anticipates that its one-time 
costs associated with moving to 1740 Folsom Street will 
amount to $351,858 as shown in the table below: 



Proposed Expenditure 


Amount 


Subtotals 


Additional locker rooms and showers, a moveable wall, and 

a training cell 
Existing on-site back-up generator and associated equipment 

Tenant improvements subtotal: 
Moving costs 

Moving subtotal. 4 
Minor furnishings for training classrooms 
Electronic whiteboard and support hardware 
Multimedia plasma displays and support hardware 
New data processing router 

Systems consulting services associated with the new router 
Equipment maintenance associated with the new router 

Equipment subtotal. 
Telephone switch and phone equipment 
DTIS support services 

DTIS work order subtotal. 
RED services 

RED work order subtotal. 

TOTAL: 


$41,104 
30.000 


S71.104 
30,000 

75.754 

150.000 
25.0001 


30.000 


8,807 
3,195 
10,200 
39,752 
8,550 
5.250 


127,853 
22.147 


25.000 




S351.858 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Description: 



The Sheriffs Department is requesting a supplemental 
appropriation from Federal funds in the amount of 
$351,858 for the above one-time costs of moving to 1740 
Folsom Street. 



Comments: 



1. The Sheriffs Department calculates that the proposed 
consolidation of its training facilities at 1740 Folsom 
Street will result in more space for less money. The table 
on the following page shows that the Sheriffs Department 
will house its 24 training staff members in 2,426 more 
feet (from the current 16,436 square feet to a proposed 
18,862 square feet) at a cost saving of $124,626 annually, 
from the current cost of $529,266 annually to the 
proposed cost of $404,640 annually. The annual cost 
saving of $124,626 comprises savings of (a) $72,026 for 
rent, and (b) $52,600 for utilities. 

2. Even when taking into account that the City would 
also be funding (a) an additional 4,997 square feet for the 
San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project at an additional 
General Fund cost of $9,910 per year (as explained in the 
Attachment), and (b) an additional 1,439 square feet for 
the Ethics Commission at an additional cost of $29,736 
per year, the rental and utility costs decrease by $84,980 
annually, as also shown in the table on the following 
page. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Rental Facilities 


Square 
Feet 


City 

Staff 


Annual 
Rent 


Annual 
Utilities 


Annual 

FY 02-03 

Cost 


Sheriffs Existing Rental Facilities 

555 7 th Street (training programs staff) 
30 Van Ness (training programs staff) 
Treasure Island Brig (training 

facilities for up to 44 trainees at a 

time) 

Total: 


4,997 

1,439 
10.000 

16,436 


16 

8 

_0 

24 


8149,910 

29,736 

269.620 

$449,266 






80.000 

$80,000 


$149,910 

29,736 

349.620 


$529,266 






Sheriffs Proposed Rental Facilities 
1740 Folsom Street (training programs 

staff, and training facilities for up 

to 180 trainees at a time) 


18,862 


24 


S377.240 


$27,400 


$404,640 


Proposed annual rent and Utilities 
decrease to Sheriff 






$72,026 


$52,600 


$124,626 


Other Parties' Proposed Rental 
Facilities 

555 7 th Street (San Francisco Pre-Trial 

Diversion Project) 
30 Van Ness (Ethics Commission) 

Total: 


N/A 

1.439 
20,301 


N/A 

5 
29 


9,910 

29.736 
$416,886 





$27,400 


9,910 
29.736 


$444,286 


Proposed square foot increase: 
Proposed increase in the number of staff 
accommodated: 


3,865 


5 








Proposed total annual rent decrease: 
Proposed annual utility cost decrease: 
Proposed total annual cost decrease: 






$32,380 


$52,600 


$84,980 



3. According to Mr. Dunn, the 1,439 square foot space at 
City-owned 30 Van Ness Avenue currently occupied by 
the Sheriffs Department will be taken over by the Ethics 
Commission on July 1, 2002 under a new memorandum of 
understanding between RED and the Ethics Commission. 
Mr. Dunn states that, while this memorandum of 
understanding will not be subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval, it has received the approval of the Mayor's 
Office of Finance. Currently the 11 staff of the Ethics 
Commission are accommodated in 2,998 square feet at 30 
Van Ness Avenue (approximately 272.5 square feet per 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

staff member). Ms. Ginny Vida states that the Ethics 
Commission requires the additional 1,439 square feet of 
space at 30 Van Ness Avenue in order to accommodate (a) 
two additional positions in FY 2002-2003 1 , (b) law clerks, 
interns, and volunteers, (c) storage for reports filed by 
campaign committees, campaign consultants, lobbyists, 
and City officers, and (d) public access to those files. With 
the addition of another 1,439 square feet to the 2,998 
square feet already occupied by the Ethics Commission, 
the 13 Ethics Commission staff members will occupy 
4,437 square feet (approximately 341.3 square feet each, 
an increase of approximately 25.2 percent over the 
current 272.5 square feet per staff member). Ms. Vida 
anticipates that the Ethics Commission's FY 2002-2003 
budget will include the additional annual rent of $29,736. 
The Ethics Commission will use the furniture already on 
site. 

4. According to Mr. Dunn, the Treasure Island Brig lease 
expires on June 30, 2002, and thus the Sheriffs 
Department's rent obligations at that location will cease 
at that time. Ms. Annemarie Conroy of the Treasure 
Island Development Authority concurs. Ms. Conroy 
states that the Treasure Island Development Authority is 
currently working on a Request for Qualifications with a 
commercial real estate broker as part of its process to find 
a new lessee for the Treasure Island Brig. As explained 
in the Attachment, the Treasure Island Brig lease only 
permits the Sheriffs Department to use the facility for 90 
days per year, which is inadequate to meet State 
mandates. 

5. Mr. Dunn reports that the proposed base rent of $1.67 
per square foot per month at 1740 Folsom Street 
represents fair market value. Mr. Dunn further states 
that 1740 Folsom Street contains office furniture from the 
previous tenant, a failed Internet business, which the 
Lessor purchased at a heavily discounted rate (because it 
had no salvage value) and included in the lease terms at 
no additional cost. Mr. Dunn states that purchasing office 
furniture typically costs between $3,500 and $5,000 per 
staff member. Mr. Dunn advises that RED considered 



1 Ms. Vida states that the Mayor's Office has approved two new positions for the Ethics Commission 
in FT 2002-2003: (a) a Public Finance Auditor Clerk funded by the Commission's Public Financing 
(Proposition O) budget, and (b) a Fines Collection Clerk funded by anticipated revenues. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

other rental properties without furniture which had the 
same or higher rental costs. 

6. Mr. Dunn reports that the proposed base rent of $1.56 
per square per month at 555 7 th Street represents fair 
market value. 

7. As noted in the table above, the proposed lease of 1740 
Folsom Street (File 02-0708) and the proposed sublease of 
555 7 th Street (File 02-0709) would: 

• Increase space for City staff members and clients by 
3,865 square feet, increasing the average space per 
staff member by 187.5 square feet. 

• Decrease General Fund costs for rental facilities by 
$84,980 per year, including $32,380 in annual rent 
costs and $52,600 in annual utility costs. 

Recommendations: 1. Approve the proposed resolution authorizing the lease 

at 1740 Folsom Street (File 02-0708). 

2. Approve the proposed resolution authorizing the 
sublease at 555 7 th Street (File 02-0709). 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance appropriating 
$351,858 for one-time moving expenses (File 02-0704). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETgANALYST 



City and County of San Francisco /* 



OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 




Page 1 of 3 



Michael Hennessey 

SHERIFF 
415 - 554 - 7225 



May 15, 2002 
Reference: CFO 2002-016 



TO: 
FROM 



Budget Analyst's Office 



Jean Mariani W^ 
SUBJECT: Sheriff's Proposed Lease of Training Facility 
Listed below are your points [in italic) and the information you requested: 

What the planned functional uses of 1740 Folsom Street will be, including 

(a) exactly how the 18,862 square feet will be configured, and for what 
purposes (please include a breakdown of the space by function), and 

The space plan for 1740 Folsom Street builds on the pre-existing 
configuration with some minor modifications to address the Sheriff's 
Department's needs. Space allocations are as follows: 5,437 square feet for 
traditional staff areas (226 square feet per person); 10,110 of training and 
training related space (for up to 180 trainees, or 55 square feet per person); 
and 3,315 square feet of ancillary space (washrooms, breakrooms, recycling 
and uniform storage). 

(b) how the new classroom space will be converted into an emergency 
command center. 

The Sheriff is having installed the necessary infrastructure to provide 25 
telephone outlets in one of the large classrooms. In the event of an 
emergency, the Sheriff's Department will cross utilize that classroom and 
personnel at 1740 Folsom Street to set up the appropriate level of 
emergency response. The large classroom space and furnishings lend 
themselves to the purpose of establishing a command post to assure 
appropriate tracking and deployment of staff, equipment and other 
resources. Another advantage of the new site is that the proposed facility 
meets the latest seismic codes and is served by substantial communications 



ROOM 456. CTTY HALL 
'-'- CARLTON 3 GOODLET7 PLACE 



SA* FRANCISCO. CA 34 1 02 
<tec.ct/t fjner 

AS 



FAX 415- 554 - 7050 



Page 2 of 3 
Page 2 of 3 

and 3-day back up power infrastructure, which couid be critical if the 
emergency results in power outages or failures. 

Please contrast the 1740 Folsom Street space with the existing 
arrangements. Why does it need to change? 

The current configuration of three separate locations does not appropriately 
address the needs of the Sheriff's Department. Consolidating these functions 
into one location would improve personnel management and efficiency, as 
well as improving communication among the various staff responsible for 
training. 

The Sheriff's Department has occupied the current space at 555 7 th Street 
for 18 years. During that time, the Department has nearly tripled in size. All 
the space at 555 7 th is currently occupied and there are no opportunities for 
expansion at that site. The Treasure Island Brig lease permits the Sheriff to 
use the building 90 days per year, which is an inadequate amount of time 
given the Department's training requirements, which are mandated by two 
State agencies. When the Sheriff's lease for this space was submitted to the 
Finance Committee last year, the Committee instructed the Sheriff to seek 
new training space. This proposed lease is a result of that search. 

Why aren't the 555 7th Street classrooms appropriate for emergency 
command purposes? 

The 555 7 th Street classrooms are currently used for emergency command 
purposes. The proposed 1740 Folsom Street space consolidates the training 
functions into one location. The emergency function will move with the 
training function to a more appropriate facility with enhanced services 
because of the robustness of the building's infrastructure and emergency 
power supply, which better lends itself to providing this function for the 
Department. 

What is the role of the SF Pre-Trial Diversion Project, and its funding 
sources? 

The San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project (SFPDP) provides alternatives to 
incarceration for offenders who would otherwise be in jail. SFPDP has served 
San Francisco for over 25 years. Some of its programs include Mentor Court, 
Supervised Pretrial Release (SPR), Connections (defendants with mental 
health issues), Substance Abuse Referral Unit (SARU), Community Service 
Project, Fine Alternatives, and the Community Involvement Team (with the 
Department of Public Works). SFPDP funding includes $685,795 of General 
Fund support and $989,061 from a variety of grant and program funds 



J0Q2 



h --- -■-<-- - ■ - _ _ — 

Page 3 of 3 
Page 3 of 3 

(including Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, State Board of Corrections 
Mentally III Offender Crime Reduction Grant, and client fees). 

Why does the 5F Pre-Trial Diversion Project need more space? Please 
quantify the growth in client numbers, and the projected client numbers in 
the next few years. 

SFPDP reports that it currently rents space at 567 7 th Street housing 28 
staff. Of SFPDP's total caseload of 9,500, approximately 250 clients visit the 
site daily. The space has little privacy for client meetings and its only 
conference room barely seats a dozen people. The proposed lease at 555 7 th 
Street would permit SFPDP to consolidate its services under the Mentally III 
Offender Crime Reduction Grant, providing private office space for sensitive 
cases for 10 MIO staff from SFPDP and other MIO grant partners; permit 
extensive use of the conference room for trainings and participant groups, 
particularly for the MIO project; consolidate Mentor Court and a new Street 
to Work collaboration project with 3 staff; and consolidate SPR, Pretrial 
Diversion and Project 20 staff into the new space (9 staff). 

Will the City effectively be paying for the SF Pre-Trial Diversion Project's 
increased rental costs, given that the Sheriff's Dept is that agency's primary 
funder? 

Of the $149,910 annual rental cost, SFPDP advises it intends to allocate 
$25,000 of existing budgeted funds in SFPDP's contract for the Mentor Court 
and Street to Work project, $15,000 from Project 20/PTD budgeted contract 
funds, $100,000 from the MIO project grant budget (State Board of 
Corrections funds) and the remaining balance of $9,910 from the Sheriff's 
existing General Fund budget as an augmentation to its contract with SFPDP. 



70 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 11 -File 02-0752 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution endorsing the transfer of State General Fund 
monies, previously allocated to the DPH, to the California 
Mental Health Directors Association for a contract to 
provide services to foster care and other Medi-Cal eligible 
children who are residents of San Francisco but are 
placed in facilities outside of San Francisco. 

$48,750 

State of California General Fund 

The DPH currently participates in a Statewide contract 
with other counties for the provision of mental health 
services to San Francisco children who are placed by the 
City's Department of Human Services (DHS) in out-of- 
county foster care facilities or adopted by families residing 
outside of San Francisco County. The California Mental 
Health Directors Association (CMHDA), a nonprofit 
organization comprised of mental health directors 
Statewide, contracts with the Statewide Administrative 
Services Organization (ASO) Value Options, a private 
behavioral health organization, to provide mental health 
referral services for San Francisco children who are 
placed by DHS in out-of-county foster care facilities or 
adopted by families residing outside of San Francisco 
County. As stated by Ms. Sai-Ling Chan-Sew of DPH in 
the attached memorandum (Attachment I), "All of these 
children whether they are placed through the dependency 
court or through the adoption process are full scope 
MediCal recipients from San Francisco." 

Under the ASO contract between CMHDA and Value 
Options, Value Options pays the mental health provider 
directly for the mental health services provided to eligible 
foster care children and adopted children, and receives 
reimbursement from CMHDA for provider payments and 
administrative fees for the contract term, which is from 
July 1. 2001 through June 30, 2005. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Under the proposed resolution, San Francisco's DPH 
would transfer to CMHDA $48,750 of the State General 
Fund monies previously allocated for distribution to San 
Francisco for mental health services in FY 2001-2002 for 
San Francisco children who are placed by DHS in an out- 
of-county foster care facility or adopted by families 
residing outside of San Francisco County. These subject 
State General Fund monies would be used to reimburse 
CMHDA for payments made to Value Options for mental 
health services provided to such eligible children. 
According to Mr. Philip Tse of the DPH, the DPH, and not 
the State, determines the amount of State General Fund 
monies to be transferred to the CMHDA based on the 
anticipated number of children to receive such services 
during each fiscal year. 

According to Ms. Chan-Sew, DPH estimates that the 
proposed transfer of $48,750 in State General Fund 
monies represents approximately 49 percent of the 
estimated $100,000 needed to cover the costs of mental 
health services provided to San Francisco children placed 
by DHS in out-of-county foster care facilities or adopted 
by families residing outside of San Francisco County for 
FY 2001-2002. In addition, San Francisco is eligible to 
receive an estimated $51,250 in Federal matching funds 
in FY 2001-2002 for total funding of $100,000 ($48,750 
State General Fund monies plus $51,250 Federal 
matching funds) for the mental health services provided 
to such eligible children. According to Ms. Chan-Sew, the 
$51,250 in Federal matching funds also would be paid by 
DPH to the CMHDA, as approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in DPH's FY 2001-2002 budget. Attachment 
II, provided by Ms. Chan-Sew, contains additional 
information regarding the number of San Francisco 
children placed in out-of-county foster care facilities or 
adopted by families residing outside of San Francisco 
County who are anticipated to receive mental health 
services through the Statewide ASO referral program in 
FY 2001-2002 and the related costs. 

Comment: According to Mr. Tse, the purpose of transferring the 

subject State funds in the amount of $48,750 together 
with the Federal matching funds in the amount of 
$51,250, or a total of $100,000. from the DPH to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 22, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



CMHDA is to facilitate access to mental health services 
for eligible San Francisco children who are placed in out- 
of-county foster care facilities or adopted by families 
residing outside of San Francisco County through the 
Statewide ASO referral program. 



Recommendation: 



Approve the proposed resolution. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 






Lit-!-: r 1 r Ihf l'_r 



Atuacnment l 



City and County of San Francisco 



Department of Public Health 



Mav 16.2002 



To: Board of Supervisors Budge! Analyst 

From Sai-ling Chan Sew, Director \\J^ /pV- 
DPH Children's Mental Heallj^Berviftes 

u 

RE: Children eligible for ASO Services 

All children and youth placed through the San Francisco Department of Human Service 
in out-of county foster homes, group homes, and adopted homes who need outpatient 
mental health services can access the ASO services. All of these children whether they 
are placed through the dependency court or through the adoption process are full scope 
McdiCal recipients from San Francisco. 



Finance 



101 Grove Street 

74 



San Francisco, CA 94102 
TOTAL P.'-2 



:■:££ 49SI £Sc ST ? 




City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Public Health 
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS DIVISION 



Sal-Ling Chan-Sew, LCSV, 

Director of Child, Youth & Family Ssctlor 
Community Mental Health Service; 
1 380 Howard Street, 5"" Fioo: 
San Francisco, CA 94103-2624 
415.255.3439 Fax 415-255-356 ' 



May 16, 2002 

Anna LaForte 

Budget Analvsc Office 

City Hall ' 

San Francisco, CA 94102 
Anna, 

The following is addendum to the ASO resolution as requested: 

Approximately 50% of the children and youth placed through the foster care system 
are placed in homes or programs outside of the city and county of San Francisco. 
However, San Francisco Department of Public Health continues to be responsible for 
their mental health care. The California Mental Health Directors' Association 
contracts with Value Option to be the Administrative Service Organization to 
authorize and identify mental health providers throughout the State of California. 

Value Option authorizes for a range of outpatient treatment services including 
assessment, individual therapy, family therapy, group therapy and psychiatric 
medication. Approximately 100 children and youth who are placed out of county 
are referred to Value Option for authorization of mental health services per year. 
The average cost per unit of service is $60.00, and the total number of units to be 
provided is approximately 1,416. The administrative cost for CMHDA is 15% of the 
contract. 

The contract amount of 5100,00 represents 100% of the cost of these services. CMHS 
wfll reimburse the CMHDA directly for the Federal Financial Participation portion 
of the contract only based on the number of units delivered, and the administrative 
costs, or 51.25% of these costs. The total represents our estimate of the cost that will 
be incurred in FY 01-02. 

Please call or page me if you have further questions. 

Thanks. 



y 



Sai-Lin? Chan-Sew 



75 



City and County of San Francisco city Han 

J J 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Meeting Minutes Goodiett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

Finance Committee 94102-4689 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 

Clerk: Gail Johnson 

Wednesday, May 29, 2002 12:30 PM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Tom Ammiano. 



Supervisor Ammiano appointed himself to serve as a member of the Finance Committee. 

MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 12:39 p.m. 
020635 [Lease of Property] 

Resolution authorizing the lease of real property at 945 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California, for the Public 
Library. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact; District 6.) 

4/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/15/02, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. 

Amended on page 1, line 3, by replacing "Human Services" with "Public Library." 

5/15/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; Susan Hildreth, City Librarian; Marc 

McDonald, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 

Continued to 5/22/02. 

5/22/02, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. 

Continued to 5/29/02. 

Speakers: None. 

FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 
Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at .1:0~ PM an .1 5 W 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 29, 2002 



020791 [Accept and Expend State Funds - Victim Compensation Program] 
Supervisors Leno, Daly 

Resolution authorizing the Department of the District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco to 
accept and expend funds in the amount of $75,000 made available through the State of California Victim 
Compensation and Government Claims Board to reimburse local group mental health counseling, education 
and activities to promote tolerance for individuals at risk for discrimination as a result of terrorism and 
backlash from terrorism, and waiving indirect costs due to funding constraints. 
5/13/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tim Silard, District Attorney's office. 
(Supervisor Daly added as co-sponsor.) 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020634 [Japan Center Garage Public Parking Lease] 

Resolution approving the proposed new Japan Center Garage Public Parking Lease by and between the City 
and County of San Francisco and the City of San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation. (Parking and 
Traffic Department) 

4/18/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ronald Szeto, Acting Director, Parking 
Authority; Rob Eshelman, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Gonzalez; Steve Nakajo, President, Japan Center 
Garage Corporation; Richard Hashimoto, Japan Center Garage Corporation; Edward Harrington, 
Controller. 
Continued to 6/5/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020842 [Competitive Bid and Prevailing Wage Exemption for Job Training] 
Supervisor Maxwell 

Ordinance exempting the San Francisco Conservation Corps from the prevailing wage requirements and 
waiving the competitive bid requirements for the Recreation and Park Commission's award of a contract for 
construction of playgrounds, restoration of natural areas and implementation of erosion control measures in San 
Francisco parks. 

5/20/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Marvin Yee, Recreation and Park Department; Har\>ey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Anne Cochran, Executive Director, San Francisco Conservation Corps. 
Continued to 6/5/02 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:07 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 29, 2002 



012027 [Appropriation - Airport Commission Airline Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2 ) Revenue] 

Ordinance appropriating 5224,034,821 of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2) revenue to fund the cost of the 
principal and interest on bonds issued for certain eligible costs associated with the development of the new 
international terminal complex, and the development and implementation of the precision runway monitoring 
system at the Airport Commission for fiscal year 2001-02. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/15/02, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, 

Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director; Wade Crowfoot, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Peskin; John Kennedy, Deputy City 

Attorney; John Bardis; Edward Harrington, Controller. 

5/15/02, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. Continued to 5/29/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Peter Nardoza, Airport. 

Amendment of the Whole prepared in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance appropriating $18,800,000 of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC2) revenue to fund the cost of the 

principal and interest on bonds issued for certain eligible costs associated with the development of the new 

international terminal complex at the Airport Commission for fiscal year 2001-02. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020473 [Reserved Funds, S.F. International Airport] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, S.F. International Airport (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget), in the 

amount of S54, 387,447, as partial reimbursements for funds expended on all contracts related to the 

development of data to be used in the preparation of the required EIR/EIS documents for the proposed runway 

project. (Airport Commission) 

3/28/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

5/15/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director; Wade Crowfoot, 

Legislative Aide to Supervisor Peskin; John Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney; John Bardis; Edward Harrington, Controller. 

Continued to 5/29/02. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $41 ,893,072 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 3. -OS PM on .? S 04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 29, 2002 



020880 [Single Room Occupancy Task Force] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to review the status and receive an update on the Single Room Occupancy Task Force. 

5/20/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the May 29, 

2002 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Anne Kronenberg, Chair, SRO Task Force; Darien Skaon, Department of 
Human Services; Commander Suhr, Police Department; Jamie Sanbonmatsu, Code Enforcement Outreach 
Program; Department of Building Inspection; Nyle Vignon, Deputy City Attorney; Antoinette Statelman; Peter 
Shemby, Fire Department, San Franciso Fire Prevention; Emanuel Smith, Jr., Tenant Representative, SRO 
Task Force; Barbara Spillane-Peyton; Mr. Reff (lives in Hartland Hotel); Rebecca Dormand; Female 
Speaker; Pauli Wai, SRO Project Coordinator; Seth Katzman, Conard House, Inc.; Joseph McCowan; 
Samuel "Shorty" Lagasca; Wai Ching Kwan; Shao Jun Lee; Bao Wood Wong; Angela Chu; Joanna Hagerty; 
Robert Butier; Joff Monroe; Meredith Walkers; Paul Lo garth; Wendy Phillips; Prince Bush; Christina 
O'Lagul; Earl Brown; Female Speaker; Ernestine Weiss. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020728 [Affordable Housing General Obligation Bonds] 

Mayor, Supervisors Ammiano, McGoldrick, Newsom, Maxwell, Sandoval, Daly, Leno, Peskin 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand improvements in the City 
and County of San Francisco consisting of financing the acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, 
construction, refinancing or preservation of privately-owned or leased rental and housing affordable to low- 
and moderate-income households, providing downpayment assistance to low- and moderate-income first time 
homebuyers and paying all other costs necessary and convenient for effectuating those purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $250,000,000 for the improvements described above is and will be too great to be paid out of 
the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and County and will require incurring bonded 
indebtedness; finding that the proposed project is in conformity with the priority policies of Planning Code 
Section 101.1(b) and with the General Plan consistency requirement of Administrative Code Section 2 A. 53. 
(Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

5/6/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steve Kawa, Mayor's Office; Mr. Higashi, 
Mayor's Office of Housing; Ernestine Weiss; Natalie Kimball, California Federal Bank; Cornelia Sapiro; Lula 
McClay, San Francisco Organizing Project; Shannon Dodge; Shannon Dodge; Janus Yakas; Joyce Calagos; 
George R. Williams; Joyce Ruffin; Gail Lang; Calvin Welch, Council of Community Housing Organizations. 
(Supervisor Peskin added as co-sponsor.) 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 29, 2002 



020759 [Zoo General Obligation Bond Sale] 
Mayor 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $6,500,000 City and County of San Francisco 

General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), Series 2002 A; prescribing the form and terms of said 

bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment 

of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; 

approving the forms of the official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell bonds; approving the form and 

execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate; 

amending Section 9(b) of the Authorizing Resolution; approving modifications to documents; ratifying certain 

actions previously taken; and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection 

with the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds. (Mayor) 

5/8/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Moyer, Mayor's Office of Public 

Finance. 

Amendment of the Whole prepared in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $6,210,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), Series 2002A; prescribing the form and terms of said 
bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment 
of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; 
approving the forms of the official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell bonds; approving the form and 
execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate; 
amending Section 9(b) of the Authorizing Resolution; approving modifications to documents; ratifying certain 
actions previously taken; and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection 
with the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020795 [Fifth and Mission Parking Garage Bond Refinancing] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving and authorizing the issuance of City of San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation 

Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds to refund bonds previously issued by the City of San Francisco Downtown 

Parking Corporation; approving a bond indenture modifying the maximum amount of the surplus revenue fund; 

authorizing and ratifying the execution and delivery of documents reasonably necessary for the issuance, sale 

and delivery of such refunding bonds; and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. (Mayor) 

5/13/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Moyer, Mayor's Office of Public 

Finance. 

Amendment of the Whole prepared in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:0S PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



May 29, 2002 



020851 [Certificates of Participation to Replace the Existing San Francisco Juvenile Hall] 
Supervisor Hall 

Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of certificates of participation to finance the acquisition, 
improvement, construction and/or reconstruction of a new juvenile detention facility to replace the existing San 
Francisco Juvenile Hall; approving the form of a property lease between the City and County of San Francisco 
(the "City") and a trustee relating to certain City-owned property (as further described in this Resolution); 
approving the form of a project lease between the City and a trustee (including certain indemnities contained 
therein); authorizing the selection of a trustee; approving the form of a trust agreement between the City and a 
trustee (including certain indemnities contained therein); approving the form of an official notice of sale and 
notice of intention to sell for the certificates of participation; approving the form of an official statement in 
preliminary and final form; approving the form of a continuing disclosure certificate; authorizing the filing of a 
validation action validating the execution and delivery of the certificates of participation; authorizing the 
reimbursement of certain expenditures; authorizing the payment of costs of issuance; adopting findings under 
the California Environmental Quality Act and findings pursuant to the City Planning Code Section 101.1; and 
ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

5/20/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. (5/30/02 - Referred to Youth Commission for comment and 

recommendation.) 

Speakers: None. 
Continued to 6/5/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020773 [Interdepartmental Jurisdictional Transfer of Property (Phelps Street Land Transfer)] 
Mayor 

Resolution transferring jurisdiction from the Public Utilities Commission to the Municipal Transportation 
Agency the real property identified as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 5262/9 for a substation for the San 
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Third Street Light Rail Project; adopting findings pursuant to the 
California Environmental Quality Act; and adopting Findings that the transfer of jurisdiction is consistent with 
the City's General Plan and the Eight Priority Policies of the Planning Code Section 101.1. (Mayor) 
5/15/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kirsten McGarry, Municipal Railway. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



020826 [Lease of Real Property] 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 68 12th Street on behalf of the Department of Public 
Health, Emergency Medical Services. (Real Estate Department) 

(Public Benefit Recipient; District 6.) 
5/15/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Judy Shotzman, Department of Public 
Health. Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services; 
Edward Harrington, Controller. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 PM on 3/5/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes May 29, 2002 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 4:32 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco Primed at i:0S P\t on i S "•> 



f 




CITY AND COUNTY iSy&SfiiS Jjl OF SAN FRANCISCO 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 02-0791 

District Attorney 



May 23, 2002 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAY 2 9 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Description: 



Resolution authorizing the District Attorney to accept and 
expend a grant in the amount of $75,000 from the 
California Victim Compensation and Government Claims 
Board for a program entitled, "Victim Compensation 
Program". 

$75,000 

September 12, 2001 through July 2, 2002 (See Comment 
No. 1). 

State Victim Compensation and Government Claims 
Board. 

None required. 

None. Indirect costs are not included in order to 
maximize the use of grant funds on direct services. 

The proposed resolution authorizes the District Attorney's 
Office to accept and expend a one-time grant of $75,000 
from the State Victim Compensation and Government 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Claims Board for the Victim Compensation Program, a 
program designed to provide mental health counseling, 
increase public awareness and promote tolerance for 
members of the Arab and Muslim communities who are at 
risk of discrimination as a result of the September 11, 
2001 terrorist attacks. According to Mr. Tim Silard of the 
District Attorney's Office, the proposed program would (a) 
provide community outreach and education at schools, 
grassroots organizations, small businesses, houses of 
worship and community centers, (b) provide materials 
and curricula, in English, Farsi, Punjabi, Hindi and 
Arabic, on hate violence, hate crimes, victim rights, 
resources for victims and witnesses and other related 
issues through the internet, the media, a poster campaign 
and distribution of resource cards, (c) provide educational 
training, presentations, and panels to educate and 
sensitize people at risk for victimization and to the 
general public, and (d) conduct a public education 
campaign to encourage the reporting of incidents of hate 
crimes. 



Budget: 



The summary budget for the 
Program" is as follows: 



"Victim Compensation 



Grant Funds 

8178 Senior Attorney, Civil and Criminal 
8129 Victim/Witness Investigator I 
8132 Investigative Assistant 



80 hours @ $52.35/hour 
80 hours @ $22.23/hour 
80 hours ® $23.05/hour 
240 hours total 



Fringe Benefits (24% of Salaries) 

Subtotal Personnel 
Materials and Supplies 
Mental Health Consultant Counseling Services 

Contractual Services 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 

Islamic Society of San Francisco 

Alliance of South Asians Taking Action 

Intergroup Clearinghouse 

Public Education Campaign 

Subtotal Contractual Services 



$4,188 
1,778 
1.844 
7,810 
1.875 

1,515 
2.400 



9,400 
9,400 
7,200 
9,400 

26.000 



$9,685 



3,915 



61.400 
Total Grant Budget $75,000 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Attachment I, provided by the District Attorney's Office, 
contains budget details for the subject $75,000 grant, 
including details on contractual services for the program. 

Comments: 1. Although the subject grant period began on September 

12, 2001, Mr. Silard reports that the proposed resolution 
is coming before the Board of Supervisors only now, 
nearly nine months after the subject grant was to begin, 
because of the lengthy planning process for the program. 
According to Mr. Silard, the District Attorney's Office 
plans to expend the entire grant amount prior to the end 
of the grant period, which expires on July 2, 2002. 

2. As shown in the above budget, the subject grant would 
fund a total of 240 hours for existing District Attorney 
staff. According to Mr. Silard, the subject grant funds 
would offset General Fund costs for an 8178 Senior 
Attorney, Civil and Criminal, 8129 VictimAVitness 
Investigator I and 8132 Investigative Assistant. Mr. 
Silard advises that staff have not begun to work on the 
subject grant program. As shown in Attachment III, 
provided by the District Attorney's Office, the District 
Attorney's Office anticipates expending the entire grant 
amount prior to the end of the grant period, which expires 
on July 2, 2002. 

3. The District Attorney's Office would expend $2,400 for 
mental health counseling to victims of hate crimes as a 
result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Mr. Silard 
advises that a consultant has not been selected and the 
District Attorney's Office would select a consultant to 
provide Mental Health Consultant Counseling Services on 
a sole source basis because of the short time requirements 
left in the grant period. According to Mr. Silard, the 
District Attorney's Office does not know the specific 
number of hate crime victims since the September 11 
terrorist attacks. However, the goal of this program is to 
increase the reporting of hate crime incidents. 

4. According to Mr. Silard, $35,400 of the total amount of 
$61,400 for contractual services consisting of (a) a $9,400 
contract with the nonprofit organization, the American- 
Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, for distributing 
culturally appropriate curriculum and training materials 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



and teaching tolerance by holding tolerance and cultural 
sensitivity educational forums, training and workshops, 
(b) a $9,400 contract with the nonprofit organization, the 
Islamic Society of San Francisco, for production and 
design of educational literature, (c) a $7,200 contract with 
the nonprofit organization, the Alliance of South Asians 
Taking Action, for the development of community 
education campaigns, cultural outreach materials, media 
work and website development and (d) a $9,400 contract 
with the nonprofit organization, the Intergroup 
Clearinghouse, for victim assistance and referrals and 
hate violence prevention and response. According to Mr. 
Silard, such services would be contracted on a sole source 
basis because these are the primary San Francisco 
organizations which promote issues facing the Arab and 
Muslim communities. 

5. According to Mr. Silard, $26,000 of the total amount of 
$61,400 for contractual services would be used for a 
Public Education Campaign to promote the reporting of 
incidents of hate crimes. According to Mr. Silard, a 
contractor has not been selected and the District 
Attorney's Office would select a contractor to provide the 
Public Education Campaign on a sole source basis 
because of the short time requirements left in the grant 
period. 

6. Attachment II is the Grant Information Form, provided 
by the District Attorney's Office, which includes the 
Disability Access Checklist. 

7. As shown in Attachment III, Mr. Silard states that 
none of the grant funds have been expended. This 
includes the Mental Health Consultant Counseling 
Services and Public Education Campaign contracts which 
have not yet been awarded. Although the Budget Analyst 
questions whether the District Attorney's Office can 
effectively spend the proposed $2,400 of subject grant 
funds on Mental Health Consultant Counseling Services 
and $26,000 of subject grant funds on the Public 
Education Campaign in the remaining grant period, 
which expires on July 2, 2002, Mr. Silard states in 
Attachment III, "the District Attorney's Office plans to 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

k 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



expend the entire amount of $75,000 prior to the end of 
the grant period." 

8. As stated in Attachment III, provided by Mr. Silard, 
the District Attorney's Office has not, to date, accepted or 
expended the subject grant monies. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution does not provide for retroactivity. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

5 



Attachment : 
Page 1 of 1 






a 



Public 

Education 

Campaign 




o 

a 

<-> 




o 

C 

c 

-T 






o 

o 
o 

CO 








o 
o 


o 
o 








o 
o 
o 
>o 

CN 


District 
Attorney's 
Office/Victim 
Witness Services 








c 
c 

T 
04 


c 
c 
cs 


c 

1/1 


c 
in 
IN 




o 




CS 


o 
m 






o 
m 


o 
o 

(—1 


Intergroup 
Clearinghouse 




c 










c 

un 








O 

o 










o 
o 

T 


Alliance of South 
Asians Taking 
Action (ASATA) 






o 
o 

CN 






o 
c 
c 


O 

o 

co 


o 
o 
















o 
o 

CN 


o 
o « 

E 1 

— o 








O 

o 

r< 
VO 


o 
o 
CS 


o 
o 
cs 


o 
o 
1/1 


o 
o 
in 






o 
o 


o 

o 








o 
o 


American-Arab 
Anti- 
Discrimination 

Committee 
(ADC) 








o 

o 

ri 

m 


o 
o 

CN 


o 

o 


o 
o 

CS 


o 

o 






O 

a 
cs 


o 

o 








O 

o 


Total by 
expense 
category 




in 

r i 


O 

c 

04 


o 

o 

00 


o 

o 


c 


O 

c 


o 

o 


o 
m 




1/1 


o 

O 

cs 






o 

'J' . 


o 
o 
o 
m 






e 
u 

u 

C/3 


U 

e 
u 

c 


V 

'-J 

1 

u 




u 
y 

(J 

- 


C 


"C 

-J 
- 

*-- 

Bt 

c 
'5 

L 1 
f- | 


3 
BS 

B 
o 

C. 


ii 

c 

-J 

i- 


u 
c 

[2 


a 
SI 

c 


L 

BS 

-~ 
u 

> 


u 

u 

'E 

CO 

ex 
u 

E 


'J 

c 
U 





Attachment II 

Page 1 of 2 
c ile Number: 

(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 

Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

3 urpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
sxpend grant funds. 

Fhe following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1. Grant Title: SB551 -Victim Compensation Program 

I. Department: District Attorney's Office 

3. Contact Person: Teresa Y. Serata Telephone: 553-1895 

I Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[x] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $ 75,000 

3a. Matching Funds Required: N/A 

b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

^a. Grant Source Agency: State of California Victim Compensation 

b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): and Government Claims Board 

3. Proposed Grant Project Summary: 

Jnder this award, the District Attorney's Office will be able to seek reimbursement from the State of California 
or specified activities providing group mental health counseling and community outreach and education to 
promote tolerance in the wake of backlash to the September 1 1 , 2001 terrorist attacks. The District Attorney's 
Dffice has developed a plan in collaboration with Intergroup Clearinghouse, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 
Committee, Islamic Society of San Francisco, and Alliance of South Asians Taking Action. Materials and 
;urricula on hate violence, hate crimes, "know your rights", resources for victims and witnesses, and other 
elated issues, will be created and distributed through mosques and other houses of worship, schools, 
irassroots organizations, small businesses, community centers and other groups. Materials will be produced 
i English, Arabic, Farsi, Punjabi, and Hindi. Trainings, presentations and panels will be conducted in a variety 
if settings to educate and sensitize people at risk for victimization and the public as a whole. A public 
education campaign to encourage the reporting of incidents of hate will be conducted through posters, 
ssource cards and other media. 

. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: Septembers, 2001 End-Date: July 2, 2002 

0. Number of new positions created and funded: None 

1. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? 



Attachment I 

Page 2 of 2 
12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: $61,400 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? No 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 
requirements? 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [x] No 

b1 . If yes, how much? $ 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [x] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[x] Existing Site(s) [ ] Existing Structure(s) [ ] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act an 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons witr 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 



Comments: 






Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer 

(Name) 

Date Reviewed" 



Department Approval: Teresa Y. Serata Chief Financial Officer 

(Name) . (Title) 



7jL^ 



(Signa 




p= .""> "0P~ 1 5; 2~ 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 1 




TERENCE HALLINAN 
DISTRICT ATTORNEY 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



May 22 2002 



Karvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

I 390 Market Street. Suite 1025 

Sar. Francisco, CA 94102 



Via facsimile 

Dear Mr. Rose: 



152-0461 



Regarding SB551, file No. 02-0791. to date, no funds have been accepted or expended; 
additionally the District Attorney's Office plans to expend the entire amount of 575,000 
prior to the end of the grant period. 




I lm Silard 



cc: ieresaSerita 



Frar.cuc-.. I : L»5 • "il. • - 151 55 }■ 1 7 V 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 02-0634 

Note: This proposed resolution is for a lease which has been resubmitted for 
Board of Supervisors approval by Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT). On January 14, 2002, the Board of Supervisors previously failed to 
approve this lease under File 01-1939. The DPT has subsequently 
proposed changes to the lease in order to address the prior concerns of the 
Board of Supervisors. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 
Lessor: 
Lessee: 

No. ofSq. Ft.: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution approving a proposed new Japan Center 
Garage Public Parking Lease by and between the City 
and County of San Francisco and the City of San 
Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation (JCGC). The 
proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Parking and Traffic (DPT) to enter into a new 15-year 
lease with JCGC, the existing lessee, with one 15-year 
option, retroactive to May 1, 2002, without using a 
competitive bid process. JCGC is a nonprofit corporation 
which manages the Japan Center Garage facilities located 
at 1660 Geary Boulevard. According to Section 17.11 of 
the Administrative Code, the Parking and Traffic 
Commission can lease a parking facility, without a 
competitive process, to a nonprofit corporation for the 
purpose of facilitating the financing of a parking facility, 
as authorized and approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

1610 Geary Boulevard between Fillmore and Laguna 

Management of Japan Center Parking Garage Facilities 

City and County of San Francisco 

City of San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation 
(JCGC), a nonprofit corporation 

The Japan Center Parking Garage facilities (Garage) 
contains 352,100 square feet and accommodates 920 
vehicles. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Annual Rent and Net 
Parking Revenues 
Payable By JCGC to 
the City's Off-Street 
Parkins Fund: 



$1.00 in total over the fifteen-year term of the lease; plus, 
75 percent of annual net revenues, consisting of estimated 
gross revenues of $3,000,000 less Parking Taxes of 
$586, 684 1 , less operating expenses of an estimated 
$1,500,000 2 , resulting in estimated net revenues to the 
City of $684,987 ($3,000,000 less $586,684 less 
$1,500,000, or $913,316, multiplied by 75 percent equals 
$684,987) annually based on existing parking rates. 



Utilities and 
Janitorial Services 
Payable by Lessee 
from Parking 
Revenues: 



All costs for utilities and janitorial services would be 
approved annually by the Controller and the DPT as part 
of their approval of all operating costs under the existing 
and proposed lease and are the responsibility of the 
Lessee. 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Description: 



The lease term is fifteen years, commencing on May 1, 
2002 or upon approval of the Board of Supervisors and 
expiring on May 1, 2017. The City can terminate the lease 
without cause at any time, upon 90 days notice. 

One option to extend the lease for an additional fifteen 
years. 

The Garage is comprised of two parking structures that 
accommodate a total of 920 vehicles. According to Mr. Ron 
Szeto of DPT, the Garage is owned by the City and 
currently leased by the City to the JCGC. 



1 Parking Taxes are 25 percent of Parking Fees and are included in posted rates, so when calculating 
Parking Taxes from Parking Fee Revenues they equal 20 percent of Parking Fee Revenues. Gross 
Revenues for the JCGC include Parking Fee Revenues, which are subject to Parking Taxes and 
Miscellaneous Revenues, which are not subject to Parking Taxes, so the total Parking Taxes to be 
collected calculate to slightly less than 20 percent of Gross Revenues. 

2 Operating Expenses for JCGC include a SI 00,000 annual contribution to the Japantown 
Community Task Force for five years (FY 2002-2003 through FY 2006-2007) as discussed in 
Description below and in Attachment II, provided by DPT. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



In 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved: (a) the 
dissolution of the City of San Francisco Western Addition 
Parking Corporation (WAPC), a non-profit corporation, 
which was the prior Garage lessee; (b) the transfer of the 
remaining assets and liabilities of WAPC to JCGC, a non- 
profit corporation; (c) a five year lease commencing on 
December 1, 1999 and expiring on November 30, 2004, 
with the JCGC as lessee for the Japan Center Garage; 
and (d) acceptance of a gift to the City of $550,000 from 
WAPC for the renovation of the Peace Plaza at the 
Japanese Cultural Trade Center. According to Mr. Szeto, 
the use of a non-profit corporation facilitates lease 
revenue financing at minimal risk to the City. 

Under the current lease with JCGC, which has been in 
effect since December 1, 1999, the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation, the existing lessee, allocates 85 percent of 
the Garage's net revenues, to the City's Off-Street 
Parking Fund. Under the proposed new lease, 75 percent, 
instead of 85 percent of net revenues, would be allocated 
to the Off-Street Parking Fund. According to Mr. Szeto, 
this percentage reduction would result in reduced parking 
revenues of an estimated $104,372 annually to be 
allocated to the Off-Street Parking Fund. Mr. Steven Lee 
of DPT states that the net revenue for fiscal year 2001- 
2002 for the City is estimated to be $789,359 at the 
existing 85 percent rate while under the proposed lease, 
the anticipated net revenue of allocating 75 percent of the 
Garage's net income to the Off-Street Parking Fund will 
be approximately $684,987 annually, or $104,732 less, as 
shown in Attachment I provided by the DPT. 

Under the existing lease, 15 percent of net revenues are 
transferred to a capital account for the Garage. Under 
the proposed lease, the Japan Center Parking Corporation 
will transfer 25 percent of net revenues to this capital 
account to be used for Garage capital improvements. This 
increased percentage allocation for capital improvements 
would be derived from the corresponding reduced 
allocation to the Off-Street Parking Fund. According to 
Mr. Szeto, the increased contribution to the capital 
account, from 15 percent of net revenues to 25 percent of 
net revenues, has been proposed because under the 
current lease, the Japan Center Garage has been 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



insufficiently funded for capital projects. Mr. Szeto 
further reports that at the time of the dissolution of 
WAPC and formation of JCGC, WAPC transferred 
$589,335 to JCGC for the capital account. In Attachment 
II, provided by DPT, Mr. Lee provides further details on 
Japan Center Garage capital expenditures. Under the 
existing lease, the capital fund account can have an 
accumulated balance of up to a maximum of $1 million. 
Under the proposed lease, the capital fund account can 
have an accumulated balance of up to a maximum of $2 
million. If the capital fund at any time exceeds the 
current maximum of $1 million or the proposed maximum 
of $2 million, such excess funds must be transferred to the 
City's Off-Street Parking Fund. The balance of the capital 
fund account is currently $267,219, according to Mr. Lee. 

Mr. Szeto reports that under the current and proposed 
lease terms, JCGC must obtain Parking and Traffic 
Commission authorization before expending any funds 
from the capital account. Under the terms of the proposed 
lease, the Controller and the Parking and Traffic 
Commission will continue to have review and approval 
authority for the annual budget of the Garage, including 
expenditures from the capital account. 

According to Mr. Szeto, the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation would continue to contract for operation of 
the Garage with a parking operator to be selected under a 
Bid/Request for Proposals (RFP) process in accordance 
with the lease agreement. Presently, the garage operator 
is Ampco System Parking. JCGC must employ a 
professional parking operator with a staff experienced in 
the management and operation of public parking 
facilities. The selection of the parking operator is subject 
to approval by both the Parking and Traffic Commission 
and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 
17.11 of the Administrative Code. The current parking 
operator agreement with Ampco System Parking, which 
was not previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
is now on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Lee reports that 
the JCGC will conduct a competitive bid/RFP process for 
a new parking operator agreement which will be subject 
to Board of Supervisors approval, pending a competitive 
process for a new parking operator agreement. 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Mav 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Mr. Lee further reports that under the terms of the lease, 
JCGC would provide the Japantown Task Force, a non- 
profit corporation, with up to $100,000 annually for five 
years, from May 1, 2002 through April 30, 2007, from 
garage parking revenues to be expended for marketing for 
Japantown and also to create a long-term conceptual plan 
for community businesses. The lease which was 
previously submitted to the Board of Supervisors included 
an annual allocation of $50,000 for the Japantown Task 
Force. Mr. Lee reports that the proposed new lease would 
increase the allocation to the Japantown Task Force by 
$50,000 from $50,000 annually to $100,000 annually 
because, he states, the increased amount would be more 
appropriate to assist the Japantown Task Force to market 
the Japantown community and create a long-term 
conceptual plan for furthering community, business and 
interest. The proposed lease would require the Japantown 
Task Force to enter into a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the City requiring the Japantown 
Task Force to abide by the Sunshine Ordinance. Under 
the proposed lease, the Japantown Task Force must 
submit an annual plan and budget for the $100,000 
annual contribution, which will be included in the JCGC 
operating expenses budget and therefore subject to 
approval of the Parking and Traffic Commission and the 
Controller. Attachment III, provided by DPT, further 
describes the $100,000 annual contribution to the 
Japantown Task Force. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Szeto reports that, previously, the Board of 

Supervisors requested that the DPT monitor and evaluate 
the JCGC during the current lease period and make 
recommendations to terminate or extend the lease with 
this corporation. Mr. Szeto further reports that DPT has 
found JCGC to be successful in its management of the 
Garage. According to Mr. Szeto, for this reason the DPT 
has now proposed a new lease of 15 years with JCGC even 
though the existing lease with JCGC does not expire until 
November 30, 2004. 

2. As stated above, the proposed lease term is fifteen 
years, retroactive from May 1, 2002 to 
April 30, 2017, with one option to extend the lease for an 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

additional fifteen years. As previously noted, since the 
DPT already has an existing lease with the Japan Center 
Garage Corporation, there is no need to begin the 
proposed lease on May 1, which would require 
retroactivity. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide that the 

lease would commence on June 1, 2002, instead of May 1, 
2002, as discussed in Comment No. 2 above. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Attachment I 



C/3 
LU 
O 

2 

< 

oi 

LU 

z 

LU 
O 



< 

Q. 

< 

-3 







o 


"3- 


o 


CD 


CO 


o 


N- 






o 


oo 


o 


T— 


CN 


CO 


00 






o 


CD 


o 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 




"O 


o 


CD 


o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


Tj- 




CD 


o 


CO 


o 


T— 


CM 


CO 


00 


CO 




CO 


in 


LO 


CO 


CN 




CD 


o 
o 


O 
0) 


CO 




y" 




* 






CM 


CL 


fee- 




* 














co 


CO 


LO 


00 


CO 


o 


CO 






o 


CN 


CXI 


LO 


CO 


o 


LO 






00 


CN 


CO 


CD 


CN 


LO 


CO 




- 03 


00 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 




r^ 


Ti- 


O 


CN 


CO 


co 


00 


2002 
ctual 
icipa 


l^ 


LO 


CO 


CO 


T— 


co 


r-- 


cm" 




T-" 




* 




















< 


















< 


ee- 


















cD 


o 


o 


CD 


CD 


CN 


o 






-* 


CO 


T— 


N- 


CO 


LO 


CO 






■>*■ 


h- 


T~ 


LO 


CD 


CO 


CO 






O) 


o 


■<fr 


TT 


CO 


o 


LO 







t — 


T — 


CO 


CNJ 


CO 


r^ 


CO 


t — 


CO 


to 


LO 


V" 


CO 


T— 


CO 


r- 


o 
o 


lo 


CN 




T-" 




* 






CN 


< 


fee- 














O 


















CO 


















CD 


















c 
















<D 


—> 
















E 


f— 












X3 




o 


O) 












C 
31 


"a 


o 

c 


o 












LL 


CD 
T3 


m 


r- 








co 




"ro 


c_ 


a: 


••■* 








03 




*i 


CD 


CO 


*- 








CO 

c 




Q. 

CO 


X 


c 


>, 




03 




CD 




O 


LU 


CD 


3 




Zj 


co 


G_ 




CO 


CJ 


— 3 




c 


CD 


X 


CD 


CO 


-13 


CD 


i^ 




0) 


X 


UJ 


ZZ 


"c 


c 


Q_ 


CD 

> 




> 
03 
DC 


CO 

h- 

co 


C3 

c 


c 

CD 
> 

CD 

cr 


g 
2 


3 
Li- 


03 

z 


"co 




CO 
CO 


_c 


"co 


o 


ra 


CO 


cj 




o 


" 


CD 


^j 




Q. 


">, 


CO 






CO 


Q. 


CD 


o 


CO 




LL 




CD 


CL 


O 


z 


O 


U 


O 



0) 






o 


n 






LL 


F 






-i£ 


ni 






CO 


Cl 






CU 


aj 






h- 


LJ 






r 


TO 
CD 
JZ 


CO 

CD 

Z3 


CO 

CD 
3 


o 


C 


!_ 


r 




CD 


CD 


ra 


n 


> 


> 


Q. 




CD 


CD 


ra 


tn 


Dl 


LL 


~ 3 


03 


03 


CD 


u 


b 


z 


z 


O 


, 4 


«4__ 


c ) 


LU 


o 


o 


o 


O 

—3 




"-5 


o 


- 


LO 


UJ 




a 


*"" 


CNJ 


kO 


u 


@ 


@) 


CO 

CD 




(13 


03 


T3 


o 


rn 


Cj) 


3 


CL 

O 


TO 

c 


ca 

c 


o 


O 


CD 


CD 
C3 


03 


01 








m 


03 


CD 


CJ 


m 


n 


LL 


CD 








n 


ra 


co 




X 


f r ) 


c 


c_ 


in 




o 


i ) 










CO 


c 

CD 

O 


CO 

o 


CO 

o 


cr 
en 


CL 


u. 


<n 




o 


u 


n 


CO 


o 


U 


O 



^ CL 



16 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 






»! 

? ^ 2 

Sfra 
oft-i 

Jo" 

z 5 5 
< at > 



i 

a 5 



S 2 S 



i 



g 3 



, 5 
8U 



O' 2 
1 g. 



& 8* 



r s 



i I o «io • i 






.8- 



i t ! 
K 5 5 9 



17 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



S<3 



3 = 3 
£°£ 

III 

2ga 






c 



3 1 s. si ^ 
1 1 1 1 1 1 



« . 






o. u. o w o ij ii uj tr u o b o 



cr g- > > 
; iizq: 



is 



FRANCISCO 



Attachment III 
City an^^gourityd^^an Francisco 




DEPABTMSNT OF PABKINQ * THAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN. JR., .Yayor 

FRED M. HAWDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RONALD S2ETO. ACTING DIRECTOR. PARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: May 9, 2002 

TO: Sarah Graham 

Budget Analyst's Gffiee 

FROM: Steven Lee 

Principal AifaP^t ' 
Parking Authority 

RE: Japan Center Garage Corporation Lensc 



The purpose of the memorandum is to provide you with additional information in regard 
to the currently proposed Japan Center Garage Corporation "JCGC" Lease. 

The original proposed Lease was rejected in December due to concerns that the Board of 
Supervisors had regarding the S50.000 per year, for the next five years, allocation to the 
Japantown Task Force for community outreach/participation and marketing in terms oT 
the process in which the Japantown Task Force would receive the funds and the specific 
use of these funds. The Board of Supervisors also wanted the Japantown Task Force to 
abide by the regulations of the Sunshine Ordinance. Additionally, the Board of 
Supervisors had concerns that there were persons servings as members on both the JCGC 
Board of Directors and the Japantown Task Force and constituted a conflict of interest. 

In response to these concerns, the Department of Parking and Traffic has revised the 
proposed Lease to require that the JCGC and the Japantown Task Force enter into a 
MOU to receive funding. The MOU requires that the Japantown Task Force submit an 
annual plan, in detail, the purpose of the funds for the upcoming year to the Parking and 
Traffic Commission or its succeeding entity and the Controller's Office for approval. All 
funds shall be disbursed on a cost reimbursement basis. The MOL' also requires that the 
Jupaniown Task Force abide by the regulations of the City's Sunshine Ordinance. 



FAX (415) 554-9624 



23 Van Moss Avonuo. Sulla 410 

19 



3an Francl»co, CA 94102-4670 



Attachment III 
Page 2 of 2 



Sarah Graham 
May 9, 2002 
Page 2 of 2 



The Lease was also revised to increase the S50.000 per year lo S 1 00,000 per year. After 
further review, the increased amount would he more appropriate lo assist the Japantown 
Task Force lo market ihc Japantown community, and create a long-term conceptual plan 
for furthering community business and interest. The funds must also be used for 
community outreach, signage, urban landscape improvements and sidewalk maintenance. 

hi regard to the concerns of the potential conflict of interest, the Department of Parking 
and Traffic has received three resignations from members of the JCGC Board of 
Directors who also serve as members of the Japantown Task Force. 

Please call me at 554-9869 ifyou require additional information. 
Cc: Ronald Szeto - Acting Director, PA 



H \PARKINCGarcgct\lopan C.-nicr Mcnc in S-Grtlhan re .'CGC Leaw lot :'-i '. 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 02-0842 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Ordinance waiving the competitive bid requirements for 
the Recreation and Park Commission's award of a 
contract not to exceed $2.5 million over a five year period 
for renovation of playgrounds, restoration of natural areas 
and implementation of erosion control measures in San 
Francisco parks, and exempting the contract from 
prevailing wage requirements. 

The proposed ordinance would waive the City's 
competitive bidding requirements to authorize the 
Recreation and Park Department (RPD) to award a 
contract, without the use of competitive bidding 
procedures, in an amount not to exceed $2.5 million, to 
the San Francisco Conservation Corps (SFCC), a 
nonprofit organization, for 1) renovation of park 
playgrounds, 2) restoration of designated Significant 
Natural Resource Areas, and 3) implementation of erosion 
control measures in the parks throughout the City. The 
proposed ordinance would also exempt the subject RPD 
contract with SFCC from prevailing wage requirements, 
pursuant to Section A 7.204 of the City's Charter. 

Attachment I, provided by Mr. Marvin Yee of the RPD, 
contains a) program descriptions for the work to be done 
under the contract, b) various RPD facilities where the 
work is to be done, c) the allocation of funds by work 
category for the $2.5 million contract, d) hourly rates for 
services to be provided, and e) funding sources for the 
contract. 

According to Mr. Yee, Significant Natural Resource Areas 
are defined as RPD properties that meet specific criteria 
including properties which contain natural biotic or 
geomorphic remnants of the indigenous landscape, 
contain rare types of species or habitat, and are 
vulnerable to degradation from an imminent ecological 
crisis. Mr. Yee reports that there are approximately 26 
such designated areas in the City, all of which may 
benefit from the proposed restoration work under the 
contract. According to Mr. Yee, at least eight playgrounds 
would be renovated under the contract, to comply with 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

safety standards and wheelchair accessibility 
requirements. Mr. Yee also states that erosion control 
methods, at a minimum of five park locations, would be 
implemented under the contract to prevent park 
deterioration and to protect park built facilities and 
landscapes. 

The proposed ordinance would also exempt the subject 
RPD contract with SFCC from prevailing wage 
requirements. 

The SFCC is eligible to be exempt from prevailing wage 
requirements in its contract with the RPD because SFCC 
meets the conditions for exemption set forth in Section A 
7.204(b) of the City Charter. Section A 7.204(b) provides 
that the Board of Supervisors may exempt from the 
prevailing wage requirement any contract where the work 
is to be performed by a nonprofit organization that 
provides job training and work experience for 
disadvantaged individuals in need of such training and 
experience, and the nonprofit organization either (1) has a 
board of directors appointed by the Mayor or (2) exists 
primarily to design and build urban gardens, yards, and 
play areas. SFCC is a nonprofit organization that 
provides job training and work experience for 
disadvantaged individuals. According to Mr. Yee, the 
SFCC has a 16-member board of directors appointed by 
the Mayor and exists primarily to design and build urban 
gardens, yards, and play areas. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Yee, the proposed ordinance 

incorrectly states that the term of the contract would be 
four and one-half years. The correct contract term would 
be five years. 

2. The subject contract had a May 1, 2001 beginning date 
and a termination date of April 30, 2006. According to Mr. 
Yee, the DPR is requesting approval of this proposed 
ordinance at this time, over one year after the contract 
starting date, because of extended labor union 
discussions. Mr. Yee reports that to date, no funds have 
been expended nor have any services been rendered by 
the SFCC in relation to the contract. According to Ms. 
Mary King-Gorwky of RPD, the term of this five-year 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

contract is now expected to begin on June 15, 2002 and 
terminate on June 14, 2007. 

3. Attachment II is a memorandum provided by Mr. Yee, 
which states the reasons as to why the RPD is requesting 
to award a $2.5 million contract without utilizing the 
City's competitive bidding procedures. 

4. According to Mr. Yee, the source of funds for the 
$2,500,000 contract over its five-year term will include 
approximately $1,000,000 in anticipated CDBG grant 
funds, $125,000 in anticipated other grant funds, and 
$1,375,000 in anticipated Open Space Program funds and 
General Fund monies. According to Mr. Yee, of the 
$1,375,000 in Open Space and General Fund monies, 
$200,000 has been included in the RPD FY 2002-2003 
budget, and the remaining $1,175,000 will be requested 
by the RPD in future RPD budgets. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 1, amend the 

proposed ordinance to reflect the correct contract term of 
five years, not four and one-half years, as is presently 
contained in the ordinance. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Attachment A 

Proiec: : Renovation of children's play areas 

Sites may include, but not limited to. : 

24* SL/York Mini Parle 

Buchanan St. Mail (Between Turk and Golden Gate Scs.) 

Crocker Amazon Playground (Geneva-Moscow Scs.) 

Kayes Valley Playground (Hayes/Buchanan Sis.) 

Keiloch-Velasco Playground 

Kimball Playground (Ellis/Pierce Sts.) 

Little Hollywood Park (Tocoloma/Lithrop Sts.) 

Silver Terrace Playground (Waterville St.) 

Scone of Work : 

Provide materials and labor for. but not limited to: 

Sue demolition 

Installation of play equipment 

Installation of resilient surfacing, including rubber matting and playground sand 

Concrete work 

Decomposed granite paving 

Disability access improvements 

Landscaping 

Scope of work shall not include carpentry, electrical, plumbing, or ironwork, unless 
approved by the SFRPD Assistant Superintendent of Parks, Structural Maintenance. 

Personnel Rates : 

Corpsmember Rate: S24.50/hour 
Supervisor Rate: S24.50/hour 

Estimated 3udge: : 52. 000. 000 fcr Ihe 5-year contract 

Anticipated Sources of Funds : 

S1,000,COO Grants 

51,000,000 Open Space Program and General Fund 

52,000.000 TOTAL 



24 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Project : Restoration of natural areas 

Examples of significant natural resource areas : 

B ayview Hiil Eawk Hill 

Brooks Property lake Merced 

Buena Vista Park Mount Davidson 

Edgehill Open Space Sharp Park 

Golden Gate Park "win Peaks 

Scope of Work : 

The scope of work will consist of, but not limited tc, the following: 

Broom - Seedlings removed in spring by hand pulling; aduit removed using weed 
wrenches or hand chain saws when individuals are coo large for weed wrenches. 

Fennel - Hand removal of adults and seedling with mattocks. 

Cotoneaster - Cut shrubs with chain saw loppers. 

Euclayptus - Saplings of 6" and less removed with chain saws. 

Pampas grass - Hand removal with shovels and mattocks. 

Plant and debris removal activities will be combined with other restoration activities such 
as seed collection, plant propagation, nursery maintenance and planting. 

Personnel Rates : 

SFCC Rate: 523/hour 

Estimated Budget : S250.000 for the 5-year contract 

Anticipated Sources of Funds : 

5125.000 Grunts 

S 1 25 .000 Open Space Program 

S250,000 TOTAL 



25 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29 ; 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Proiect : Erosion control 

Sites . but no; limited .o. : 

Buena Vista Park Pine Lice Park 

Golden Gate Park Pioneer Park 

McLaren Park 

Scone or" Work : 

Provide materials and labor for, but not limited to. proven and acceptable methods of 
ercsian control, including trail improvements, minor grading, retaining walls ud co 3' 
high, and biotechnical slope stabilization techniques (brush layering, branch packw CT 
wattling, olastic or jute netting, and re- vegetation). 

Scope of work shall not mclude canopy thinning, retaining walls greater than 3' hieh, or 
irrigation systems, unless approved by the SFRPD Assistant Superintendent of Parks 
(Structural Maintenance) or the SFRPD Urban Forester. 

Personnel Rates : 

Corpsmember Rate: S23.0Ohour 

Field Supervisor Rate: S23.00/hour 

Estimated Budget : S250.000 for the 5-year contract 

Anticipated Sources of Funds : Open Space Program and General Fund 



26 



Attachment II 
Paee 1 of 1 



Memo :o .-inance Commines 

May 29, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Attachment B 

The Receadon and Park Department (RPD) -wishes to award the subject contract 
for an amount not to exceed 52.5 million over a period of rive years, without 
competitive bid. even -.hough the expenditure involved in each, contract exceeds 
S50.000, because: 

(1) die development of disadvantaged individuals will best serve the public 
interest bv havina a significant posidve impact or. the economic heaith of the 

City, and 

(2) the 5FCC has been awarded 5200,000 Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) amounts for 2i' h St/York Mini Park and Crocks Amazon 
Plavsround. Tne RPD wishes to supplement those grant amounts to 
completely fund Ir.ese renovation projects. 



27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 5 and 6 - Files 01-2027 and 02-0473 

Note : At the May 15, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting, the Airport submitted an 
Amendment of the Whole for File 01-2027 and the Finance Committee continued 
both Files 01-2027 and 02-0473 to its May 29, 2002 meeting. This report is based on 
the Amendment of the Whole of File 01-2027. 



Department: 
Items: 



Airport Commission 

File 01-2027 

Ordinance appropriating $224,034,821 of Passenger 
Facility Charge (PFC2) revenue to fund the cost of the 
principal and interest on revenue bonds issued for certain 
eligible costs associated with the development of the new 
International Terminal Complex, and the development 
and implementation of the Airport precision runway 
monitoring system at the Airport Commission. 

File 02-0473 

Hearing to request the release of reserved Passenger 
Facility Charge (PFCl) revenues, San Francisco 
International Airport (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget), in 
the amount of $54,387,447, as partial reimbursements for 
funds already expended on all contracts related to the 
development of data to be used in the preparation of the 
required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents for the 
Airport's proposed new runway project. 



Amounts: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



File 01-2027 
File 02-0473 



$224,034,821 
$54,387,447 



Passenger Facility Charge revenues (PFC). 

On July 27, 2001 the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) approved a request by the Airport Commission to 
impose and use a $4.50 Passenger Facility Charge (PFCl) 
up to $113,358,139 for eligible costs associated with 
potential runway reconfiguration studies at San Francisco 
International Airport. On March 29, 2002 the FAA 
approved a second request by the Airport Commission to 
continue to impose and use a $4.50 Passenger Facility 
Charge (PFC2) up to an additional $224,034,821 for 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



eligible costs associated with the development of the new 
International Terminal Complex. Attachment I, provided 
by the .Airport contains detailed descriptions of budgeted 
eligible costs to be reimbursed by PFCl and PFC2 
revenues that were approved by the FAA. 

According to Mr. Leo Fermm of the Airport, PFCl 
collections began on October 1, 2001 and will continue 
through June 1, 2003. Mr. Fermin reports that PFC2 
collections will begin June 2, 2003 and continue through 
April 1, 2008. At that time it is projected that the 
maximum FAA authorized Passenger Facility Charge 
revenue will be collected. According to Mr. Fermin, (a) all 
PFC revenue collected for the entire FAA-approved time 
period, from October 1, 2001 to April 1, 2008, may be used 
to reimburse the Airport for FAA-approved eligible 
expenditures made during or after 1996 and (b) revenue 
collected for eligible costs approved under PFCl may be 
applied to eligible costs approved under PFC2 and vice 
versa. 

File 01-2027 

xApproval of the proposed ordinance would appropriate 
$224,034,821 in PFC2 revenues to pay debt service on 15 
Airport Revenue Bonds issued between April of 1994 and 
December of 2000 with a total par amount of $2.85 billion. 
Such revenue bonds were issued to finance the new 
International Terminal, Boarding Areas A and G, 
Airtrain, the North and South Parking Garages, the 
North Field Cargo Facility, Firehouse 1, 2 and 3, the 
Airtrain Maintenance Station, and the Airtrain Stations. 
Attachment II, provided by the Airport, is a schedule of 
annual debt service payments in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 
for the 15 individual revenue bond issuances that 
comprise the $2.85 billion in total revenue bonds used to 
finance projects eligible for payment under PFC2. Mr. 
Fermin reports that although a portion of the revenue 
bonds were issued prior to 1996, the first year for which 
expenditures are eligible to be reimbursed by PFC 
revenues, the expenditures from bond funds to be repaid 
with PFC2 revenues were incurred during or after 1996. 
Mr. Fermin further reports that all work for the new 
International Terminal Complex was completed in 2001. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to Mr. Fermin, the Board of Supervisors 
approved the projects eligible to be reimbursed by PFC2 
revenues in the Airport's 1992 Master Plan. As noted 
above, the PFC2 revenues would be used to partially pay 
debt service on eligible projects for the years FY 2001- 
2002 through FY 2007-2008. 

File 02-0473 

Mr. Fermin reports that PFCl will fund eligible costs 
associated with potential runway reconfiguration studies 
at San Francisco International Airport, including 
feasibility studies, "no-build" solutions to delays and 
capacity issues, the environmental impact process, 
planning and preliminary engineering as it relates to the 
preparation of the environmental documents, and 
associated financing costs (i.e., costs associated with 
funding runway reconfiguration activity through the 
issuance of Commercial Paper). The estimated amount of 
net PFCl revenue is $113,358,139, of which $60 million 
was appropriated and reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the FY 2001-2002 budget. The $60 million 
of PFCl revenues included in the Airport's FY" 2001-2002 
budget was appropriated and placed on reserve by the 
Board of Supervisors pending identification of specific 
projects and submission to the Finance Committee of 
detailed budgets for each project, including identification 
of contractors, estimated hours, and hourly rates. 

The Airport is now requesting release of $54,387,447 of 
the $60,000,000 in PFCl revenue placed on reserve to 
reimburse the Airport's Commercial Paper Fund for 
previous expenditures for contracts and personnel related 
to the development of data to be used in the preparation 
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents, as 
required for the Runway Reconfiguration plan. Mr. 
Fermin reports that the subject reserve of $54,387,447 is 
for (a) expenditures made on invoices for nine outside 
contracts for the EIR and EIS documents for the Runway 
Reconfiguration plan, and (b) salary expenditures for 
work on the Runway Reconfiguration plan performed by 
Airport personnel and Airport consultants. Mr. Fermin 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

reports that the FAA permits the Airport to be 
reimbursed for Airport personnel salaries and consultant 
charges for work on the Runway Reconfiguration plan 
from PFCl revenue. Attachment III, provided by the 
Airport, includes the information requested by the Budget 
Analyst to have the funds released from reserve, 
including the identification of specific projects and 
submission to the Finance Committee of detailed budgets 
for each project, the identification of contractors, 
estimated hours, and hourly rates, and the amounts 
already expended on the nine contracts, the total contract 
amounts, and the amounts already expended for Airport 
personnel salaries and Airport consultant charges. 

According to Ms. Debra Ward of the Airport, the 
$54,387,447 in runway project expenditures from 
Commercial Paper proceeds were incurred between April 
of 1999 and March of 2002. Of this total, $12,394,375 was 
expended during the current FY 2001-2002 from 
Commercial Paper proceeds for purposes the Airport 
intended to fund from PFCl revenues which were 
appropriated but were reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the Airport's FY 2001-2002 budget. Such 
expenditures were incurred prior to obtaining approval 
from the Board of Supervisors for the release of such 
reserved funds. 

Budget: 01-2027 

Attachment I, page 13, contains a budget for PFC2 
eligible costs totaling $224,467,913, currently financed by 
the $2.85 billion in Airport Revenue Bonds. All of the 
projects funded by the $2.85 billion in Airport Revenue 
Bonds are complete. As previously noted, the subject 
$224,034,821 in PFC revenue would partially pay debt 
service on such Airport Revenue Bonds. Attachment IV, 
provided by the Airport, explains that the amount of 
PFC2 revenue included in the attached budget. 
Attachment I, page 13 ($224,467,913), differs from the 
amount requested to be appropriated in the proposed 
ordinance ($224,034,821) by $433,052 because the first 
figure reflects the amount the Airport projected it would 
collect as of August of 2001 based on the enplaned 
passenger forecasts at that time. As stated by Mr. Fermin 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

in Attachment IV, "The figure of $224,034,821 in the 
proposed ordinance matches the figure in the Federal 
Register and is the final amount approved by the FAA." 

02-0473 

A summary of (a) the nine Airport contracts and (b) the 
Airport staffing expenditures, included in the total 
requested amount of $54,387,447, is as follows: 

Amount 

URS Planning Feasibility Study $1,856,799 

HNTB Airspace Planning 5,856,857 

HMMH Noise Analysis 212,848 

URS Environmental 11,149,353 

Environmental Science Associates 771,806 

California Academy of Sciences 145,047 

Jones and Stokes Mitigation Planning 2,959,210 
Airfield Development Engineering 

Consultants (ADEC) 26,837,396 

Blue Ribbon Panel Concepts 1,250,000 

Airport Planning Staff and Consultants 533,347 
Airport Environmental Staff 

and Consultants 901,170 
Airport Marine Structures Staff 

and Consultants 818,368 
Airport Pavement and Utilities Staff 

and Consultants 1,095,246 

Total $54,387,447 

Attachment III, provided by the Airport, contains budget 
details for the requested release of reserved funds, 
including contractor hours and hourly rates for each 
contract amount, a description of contractor selection 
processes, and budget details for in-house Airport 
personnel expenditures and Airport consultants. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Fermin reports that from October 1, 2001 through 

the end of February 2002. the Airport has actually 
collected $19,758,979 in PFCl revenue. 

2. Mr. Fermin reports that the Airport did not receive 
prior approval of the Board of Supervisors for the 
contracts with URS Environmental and Airfield 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Development Engineering Consultants (ADEC). As noted 
in the Budget section of this report each of these contracts 
is over ten million dollars. As shown in Attachment V, 
Ms. Mara Rosales, General Counsel for the Airport, states 
that the reason the Airport did not receive Board of 
Supervisors approval for such architectural and 
engineering services contracts for the development of data 
for the EIR and EIS documents for the Runway 
Reconfiguration project is that the "former General 
Counsel... had advised the Airport that he believed that 
construction-related professional services contracts fell 
within the exception for construction contracts contained 
in the Charter and thus were not subject to Board of 
Supervisors review." Ms. Rosales further states that the 
"Airport had followed this advice for many years including 
throughout the recent Master Plan Expansion Program 
though the City Attorney's Office does not have a written 
opinion on this matter." Mr. Dave Greenburg of the City 
Attorney's Office advises that the City Attorney is in the 
process of preparing a written opinion on this matter, 
however Mr. Greenburg states that as of the writing of 
this report the City Attorney has not issued the written 
opinion. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that Charter Section 9.118 
(b) states that: 

Unless otherwise provided for in this Charter, and 
with the exception of construction contracts entered 
into by the City and County, any other contracts or 
agreements entered into by a department, board or 
commission having a term in excess of ten years, or 
requiring anticipated expenditures by the City and 
County often million dollars, or the modification or 
amendments to such contract or agreement having 
an impact of more than $500,000 shall be subject to 
approval of the Board of Supervisors by resolution. 

This Charter Section does not state that architectural and 
engineering services contracts are construction contracts. 

4. Mr. Fermin had previously reported to the Budget 
Analyst, as reported in the Budget Analyst's report to the 
Finance Committee for the May 15, 2002 Finance 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Committee meeting, that all of the nine contractors listed 
in the Budget section of this report were selected through 
a Request for Proposals process and were awarded 
contracts in accordance with City and Airport Policies and 
Procedures for selecting contractors. As detailed in 
Attachment III and as shown in the table below, the 
Airport is now reporting that seven of the nine contractors 
were selected through a Request for Proposals (RFP) 
process and two of the nine contractors were selected on a 
sole source basis. Attachment III includes an explanation 
for why the HMMH Noise Analysis (page 4 of Attachment 
III) and California Academy of Sciences (page 8 of 
Attachment III) contracts were selected on a sole source 
basis. 

Contractor Method of Selection 

URS Planning Feasibility Study 

HNTB Airspace Planning 

HMMH Noise Analysis 

URS Environmental 

Environmental Science Associates 

California Academy of Sciences 

Jones and Stokes Mitigation Planning 

Airfield Development Engineering 

Consultants (ADEC) 
Blue Ribbon Panel Concepts RFP 

5. Mr. Fermin clarifies that PFC2 revenue will not pay 
debt service for the precision runway monitoring system 
because this project was not approved by the FAA as part 
of the Airport's PFC2 application to the FAA. Therefore 
the Budget Analyst recommends amending File 01-2027 
to delete the words "and the development and 
implementation of the precision runway monitoring 
system" from the title of the proposed ordinance (Page 1, 
Lines 4 through 6). 

6. The Budget Analyst has questioned the rationale for 
the appropriation request of $224,034,821 in PFC2 
revenues at this time (File 01-2027) when such revenues 
will be expended for future debt service payments from 
FY 2001-2002 through FY 2007-2008. According to Mr. 
John Martin, Director of the Airport, the Airport has a 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

34 



RFP 


RFP 


Sole Source 


RFP 


RFP 


Sole Source 


ing RFP 


RFP 



;_\/ecl: 5/24/02 10:46AM; 415 252 0461 -> BOAHD OF SUPERVISORS; Page 2 

flftY-24-2002 10=47 HfiRUEY M ROSE flCC CORP 415 252 0461 P. 02 



Memo to Finance Com mi ttee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

critical need for appropriation and authorization of 
$18,800,000 for the payment of debt service during FY 
2001-2002, as is authorized under FAA approval of PFC2. 
Such debt service payments would be made from PFCl 
revenues collected during FY 2CC 1-2002 as is permitted 
by the FAA and as noted above. Therefore the Budget 
Analyst recommends that the proposed supplemental 
appropriation be amended to reduce this request by 
$205,234,821 from $224,034,821 to $18,800,000. The 
Budget Analyst further recommends that future PFC2 
revenues be specifically appropriated in the Airport's 
budget on an annual basis. 

Recommendations: File 01-2027 

1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete the words 
"and the development and implementation of the 
precision runway monitoring system" from the title of the 
proposed ordinance (Page 1, Lines 4 through 6) as 
discussed in Comment No. 5, above, 

2. Reduce the requested supplemental appropriation by 
$205,234,821 from the requested amount of $224,034,821 
to $18,800,000 for the payment of debt service during FY 
2001-2002. 

3. The Budget Analyst further recommends that future 
PFC2 revenues be specifically appropriated in the 
Airport's budget on an annual basis. 

4. Approve the proposed ordinance, as amended. 

File 02-0473 

Release of the reserved funds is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors because, as noted above, 
$12,394,375 of the requested amount of $54,387,447, was 
expended during the current FY 2001-2002 from 
Commercial Paper proceeds for purposes the Airport 
intended to fund from PFCl revenues which were 
appropriated but were reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the Airport's FY 2001-2002 budget. Such 
expenditures were incurred prior to obtaining approval 
from the Board of Supervisors for the release of such 
reserved funds. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

35 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 13 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FR\NCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Finance and Labor Committee DATE: May 20, 2002 

FROM: Leo Fermin 

RE: PFC Eligible Projects and Costs (Project Listing and Budget) 

As requested, this memorandum addresses the projects that are eligible to be reimbursed 
with PFC revenues and the budgets submitted under both PFC applications. First, the 
Airport believes that it is important to explain that the designations of PFC #1 and PFC 
#2 are conventions that were implemented for administrative purposes. These 
designations do not have any bearing on the Federal Aviation Administration's 
determination of which fees are used for any of the eligible projects. Once the FAA has 
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) it makes no distinction between the various 
applications submitted by an airport. 

The FAA simply determines that based on the ROD, or RODs, issued that an airport has 
the authority to collect the specified PFC (ranging between $2.00 and $4.50 per domestic 
ticket). These fees can be collected for the specified period of time (from the inception of 
the collection date on the first application through the end date on the final application). 
As such, all PFC projects identified under the various applications are eligible for 
reimbursement once approved. The only distinction that is made by the FAA is that the 
airport commences reimbursement on one of the initially identified projects within two 
years of the authorization to collect PFCs. 

PFCs run consecutively and not concurrently due to the limitations on collection. These 
limitations are based on projected passenger forecasts. It would not be beneficial to 
overlap collection periods if it would be impossible to collect the authorized amount of 
PFC revenue. 

Description of Eligible Projects and Costs Identified in PFC Application 

#7 

The following are description of all of the projects listed and approved in PFC 
Application #1. These are the same descriptions and costs that were included in the 
memorandum of May7, 2002. 



36 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 13 



4.a. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 

The proposed PFC Project would fund the PFC-eligible portions of the runway 
reconfiguration called "project development," including feasibility studies, planning 
studies, geotechnical studies, environmental studies, mitigation studies, benefit-cost 
analysis, cost and schedule control, no-build solutions to delays and capacity issues, 
and the development of off shore runway construction concepts for environmental 
studies. 

A. ENGINEERING STUDIES 

1. Preliminary geotechnical investigation, circulation studies, preliminary hazardous materials 
investigation, and preliminary foundation analyses and bathymetry, including the Blue 
Ribbon Panel convened to advise on technical issues. ($8,138,191) 

2. Engineering support for review of the off shore construction concepts, evaluation of potential 
borrow sites, evaluation of potential mitigation and disposal sites, the sediment chemistry and 
bioassay characterization of the future airfield area, and other engineering support required 
for the EIR/EIS efforts. This contract also includes funding for the technical support required 
to make presentations to Resource Agencies, community organizations, other jurisdictions 
and other consultants associated with the Project. The technical support provided includes, 
but is not limited to, attendance at meetings, providing written explanations of the 
engineering, science and geotechnical work that has been provided for the Project, and review 
of documents. (59,300,789) 

3. Completion of geotechnical investigation and analyses; a wrap-up of 
sedimentation/bioassay work necessary for completion of the Dredged Materials 
Management Office report (high level staff from the Corps of Engineers, Regional 
Water Quality Control Board, Environmental Protection Agency, and Bay 
Conservation Development Commission); review of design/construction schedule; 
investigation of availability of labor, equipment, and materials; investigation of 
contracting strategy; physical modeling in the Bay Model; analyses of Columbia 
River borrow material; technical support required to make presentations to Resource 
Agencies, community organizations, other jurisdictions and other consultants 
associated with the Project.; in-Bay disposal study; value engineering and 
instrumentation of the existing airfield. (22,296,951) 

4. Preliminary engineering in support of environmental studies and permitting. The 
Draft EIS must analyze, at an equal level of detail, the environmental impacts of a 
range of alternatives that meet the project's purpose and need. Therefore, preliminary 
engineering plans will be prepared for four alternative project layouts, two 
construction methods and combinations thereof, three alternative borrow sites, two 
alternative dredge disposal sites, two alternative fabrication sites, and up to 38,000 
acres of alternative mitigation sites. These alternatives are expected to bracket the 
impacts of the project that is ultimately selected. The work would include developing 
descriptions of structures and earth fill operations (e.g., amount and location for rock 
and sand placement, steel or concrete pile sizes, pile locations, pile depths, thickness 



37 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 13 



of deck slabs, equipment to place deck slabs, draft of vessels to be used for 
construction and depth of access channels for various construction vessels). The work 
will need to meet the Airport's seismic safety standards, need to be coordinated with 
the pavement and utilities engineering studies as well as the geotechnical studies, and 
also entail coordinating the marine structures and earth fill work with the work of 
airport engineers and other consultants, including NAVAlDs engineering, preliminary 
high voltage electrical engineering, and air traffic control tower preliminary 
engineering. (29,064,966) 

x Offshore runway construction concepts - engagement of 5 firms to develop offshore 
construction concepts for the runway platforms. The reports focus on construction 
schedule and estimate, design life, minimization of adverse environmental effects, life 
cycle costs, and feasibility of construction concept. ($1,453,248) 

B. Environmental Studies and Permits 

1 . EIR/EIS Phase I - Preparation of Phase I of the Environmental Impact Report and 
Environmental Impact Statement, including preparing the purpose and need 
statement, selecting alternatives for analysis, establishing environmental baselines, 
conducting technical studies of noise, hydrodynamics, transportation, air quality, 
floodplains and biological resources. ($11,800,000) 

2. EIR/EIS Phase II - Preparation and circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact 
Report and Environmental Impact Statement and all associated technical studies in 
support of the 404(b)(1) analysis. These include hydrology, water quality, biological 
resources, air quality, noise, land use compatibility, and socio-economics. 
($3,600,730) 

3. EIR/EIS - Phase III — Preparation of responses to comments on the Draft 
Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement and circulation of 
the Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement. 
($5,489,173) 

1 through 3 total ($20,889,903) 

4. Services to assist Airport staff with the review of technical documents. ($1,162,872) 

5. Services to review existing environmental conditions, documentation, marine ecology 
assistance, historical resources report, EIR/EIS contract coordination, environmental 
documentation review, and conducting additional environmental and public access 
alternatives technical studies. ($1,000,000) 

6. Services for technical studies and reports supportive of 404(b)(1) alternatives 
analysis. These emphasize hydrology, water quality, marine biological resources, 
relating to alternative sites, platform construction methods, and ancillary facilities. 
($1,000,000) 



38 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 13 

7. Services for permit applications, visual aids for agency presentations, and sensitivity 
analyses in response to questions and comments from permitting agencies and the 
public. ($325,745) 

5 through 7 total ($2,325,745) 

8. Computerized database of Bay species -- cataloging invertebrate and ichthyology 
specimens collected from the San Francisco Bay. ($178,290) 

9. Habitat mitigation site planning and assessment — identification of potential 
mitigation sites, field survey and study of the existing habitat, and preparation of a 
Mitigation Plan for submittal to the Corps of Engineers and other regulatory and 
approval agencies. Right-of-way services (including preparation of a Relocation 
Impact Statement for businesses and farms that could be displaced as required for the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report). ($(4,150,000) 

10. Recreational public access -- services related to public access opportunities and 
developing conceptual plans for purposes of permit application. The McAteer-Petris 
Act of 1970 requires that all projects within 100 feet of the Bay study the impact of 
the project on access to the Bay. It is required that the documents supporting such a 
study contain evidence that a thorough analysis of the impact the project on access to 
the Bay was conducted, and that this analysis be included as part of the EIR/EIS 
documents. It is also required that information on the steps that would be taken to 
ensure that maximum feasible public access to the Bay all along the coast line has 
been addressed as part of the Project. ($670,132) 

9 and 10 total ($4,820,132) 

C. PLANNING 

1 . Feasibility study — conducting a comprehensive technical evaluation of runways at 
San Francisco International Airport. ($2,215,632) 

2. Airspace/taxiing planning study — planning study that includes a detailed passenger 
forecast, airfield layout planning, detailed regional airspace analysis, capacity 
analysis, facility planning (siting and planning of control tower and emergency relief 
facility), and aircraft airspace obstruction analysis. Also included is the study of 
alternatives that would address no-build solutions to delays and future capacity issues. 
Such studies include the use of technology and flight procedures, scheduling of 
flights, and other demand management practices that would reduce delays without the 
need to reconfigure existing runways. ($9,537,207) 

D. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

No PFC funding requested. 



39 



Attachment I 
Page 5 ot 13 



E. PAVEMENT AND UTILITIES 



1 . This project covers funding for m-house staff necessary for the preliminary 

engineering for the new pavement and utilities for the new runway reconfigurations. 
The utilities will include power and communications system, industrial waste systems 
with pump stations, sanitary sewer systems with pump stations, drainage systems, 
water supply systems, natural gas lines and conduits for FAA utilities. 

The preliminary engineering will provide detailed information concerning the 
locations, heights, materials, and characteristics of the systems necessary for the 
environmental studies that are being conducted. ($5,718,798) 

F. Legal Services in Support of Program Management 

No PFC funding requested at this time. 

G. Program Management 

Eligible PFC costs included as indirect cost. 
H. Other (Indirect/Administrative Costs) 

Eligible PFC costs included as indirect cost. 



I. Financing Costs 

PFC Project costs to date have been financed through commercial paper (CP) secured by 
a pledge of the net revenues of the Airport and will continue to be funded with CP until 
PFC revenues are received. Once PFC revenues start being collected, they will be used 
to pay project costs on a pay-as-you-go basis and then to pay down outstanding CP. A 
projection of PFC eligible financing costs is shown on Attachment A-2. 

Staff Costs 

Allocable staff support costs for each of these functions is included in the line 
items. The organization chart appearing at the end of this Attachment B illustrates 
the management structure of the Airfield Development Bureau (ADB), which was 
established to oversee the runway reconfiguration effort. Also attached is an 
organization chart for the entire Airport illustrating ADB's placement in the overall 
Airport organizational structure. 



The following is the detailed budget submitted with PFC Application #1. This is the same 
budget that was submitted in the memorandum of May 2, 2002. 



40 



Attachment I 
Fage 6 of 13 



Project Activity 




| 

Total Project j PFC Eligible 
Cost 


PFC Revenue 


AIP AIP j Commercial j Total 
Entitlement (a) I Discretionary | Paper 






II I 


1 


II 


jineering Studies 




$71,154,441 


$70,254,1441 

I 1 


$60,254,144 




$10,000,000 


$ 


$900,297 


$ 71,154,441 


Preliminary Geotechnical 
stigation 






8.138.191 


8.138,191 










$ 8,138,191 


Engineering Support for 
hore Construction 






| 

9,300.789 


9,300,789 










S 9,300,789 


Complete Geotechnical 
stigation and Analyses 






i | 
i 22,296,951 1 


22,296.951 










S 22,296,951 


Engineering Support for 
ronmental Studies/Permits 






! I 

29,064,9661 


19,064,966 




10,000,000 






$ 29,064,966 


Offshore Runway 
struction Concepts 






1.453,248 


1,453,248 










S 1,453,248 


i PFC Projects 






I 










900,297 


$ 900,297 






















ironmental Studies and Permits 


$ 47,072,942 


$ 29,376,9421 


$ 28,376,942 




$ 1,000,000 


$ 


$ 17,696,000 


$ 47,072,942 


thru B-3 EIR/EIS Phases 1 - 
'eparation of Documents 






20.889,903 


20,889,903 










S 20,889,903 


Services for Review of 
inical Documents 






1,162,872 


1,162,872 










S 1,162,872 


thru B-7 services to review 
ronmental conditions, 404 
natives and permits 






2.325,745 


2,325,745 










S 2,325,745 


Computerized Database of 
Species 






178.290 


178,290 










S 178,290 


thru B-10 Habitat and 
eational Public Access 
ation 






4.820,132 


3,820,132 




1,000,000 






$ 4,820,132 


PFC Projects 
















17,469,560 


S 17,469,560 






















ining 




$ 12,750,839 


$ 11,752,839 


$ 11,752,839 




$ 


$ 


$ 998,000 


$ 12,750,839 


Feasibility Study 






2.215.632 


2,215,632 










$ 2,215,632 


Airspace and Taxiing 
ning Study 






9,537,207 


9,537,207 










$ 9,537,207 


■ -PFC Projects 
















998,000 


$ 998,000 






















Hie Information/Community 
i?ach 


$ 6,080,980 


$ -I 


$ 




$ 


$ 


$ 6,080,980 


$ 6,080,980 






















i?ment and Utilities 




$ 5,718,798 


$ 5,718,7981 


$ 5,718,798 




$ 


$ 


$ 


$ 5,718,798 


Project Activitv 




Total Project 
Cost 


PFC Eligible 


PFC Revenue 




AIP 
Entitlement (a 


AIP 
Discretionary 


Commercial 
Paper 


Total 








5,718,7981 


5,718,798 










$ 5,718,798 








! 














: il Services for Program 
ngement 


$ 13,183,441 


(0) 


(0) 




- 


- 


$ 13,183,441 


$ 13,183,441 








1 














[iram Management 




$ 16,580,207 


$ -j 


$ 




$ 


$ 


$ 16,580,207 


$ 16,580,207 






















I :r 




$ 


$ -! 


$ 




$ 


$ 


$ 


$ 








1 














l^total 




$172,541,648 


$ 117,102,723! I $106,102,723 




$11,000,000 


$ 


$ 55,438,925 


$172,541,648 




I 














ncing costs (b) Fees and 
:e costs on commercial 

i - 




$ 10,690,285 


$7,255,416. 


$ 7.255,416 




$ 


$ 


S 3,434,869 


$ 10.690.285 




















1 il 












; 1 PFC Project costs j $183,231,9321 | S 124,358,1391' $113,358,139 




$11,000,000 


$ 


$ 58,873,794 


$183,231,932 


: Assuming multiyear entitlement qrant for preliminary engineering in support of environmental studies. 






| *let of PFC interest earnings. 


I I 
















| 











































































Attachment I 
Page 7 of 13 



Description of Eligible Projects and Costs Identified in PFC Application 

#2 

The following are description of all of the projects listed and approved in PFC 
Application #2. These are the same descriptions and costs that were included in the 
memorandum of May7, 2002. 



4.a. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 

The proposed PFC #2 Project would provide for the reimbursement of certain eligible 
project costs associated with the development of the new ITC. These costs were funded 
with Airport revenue bonds. Specific PFC-eligible projects in the ITC for this application 
include: 

• Taxiway improvements and realignment and Boarding Areas "A" and "G" apron 
construction 

• ITC common use systems, including common use terminal equipment (CUTE), 
baggage system security screening devices, passenger loading bridges and associated 
systems (ground power, aircraft docking, potable water), gateroom podiums, 
gateroom seating, baggage system, and associated financing costs. 



The proposed PFC #2 Project will not fund a Precision Runway Monitoring System 
(PRM), an instrument landing system (ILS), and a simultaneous offset instrument 
approach procedure (SOIA) for SFO for enhanced utilization of the closely spaced 
parallel runways (Runway 28L and Runway 28R) during Instrument Flight Rules and 
Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IFR/IMC). 



A. Taxiway Improvements & Realignment, and Boarding Areas "A"and "G" Apron 
Construction. Taxiwavs (522,785,853) Aprons ($53,718,105) 

Taxiway and apron improvements related to the ITC include taxiway modifications 
necessary to accommodate the new terminal, increased traffic, enhanced convenience, 
and new larger-bodied aircraft (please see the drawings at the end of this section). 
Project costs for this PFC application include: 

Construction of Boarding Area A aprons and taxi lanes 

Construction of Boarding Area G aprons and taxi lanes 

Construction of new vehicle service roads and a jet blast deflector 

Necessary relocation of utilities and new storm drain system 

Construction necessary for the horizontal clearance between taxiing aircraft and the 

vehicle service road along the Boarding Area F limit line 
Provision of the necessary clearance for aircraft taxiing and parking at the South 

Terminal, and for the vehicle service road surrounding the new Boarding Area A 



42 



Attachment I 
Page 8 of 13 



Financing costs associated with the taxiways and aprons include such costs as 
interest expense, capitalized interest, and credit enhancement on Airport 
revenue bonds issued for these improvements 

B. COMMON USE SYSTEMS 



Common use systems in the new ITC are composed of the following: (1) Common Use 
Terminal Equipment (CUTE), (2) baggage system security screening devices, (3) 
passenger loading bridges and associated systems (preconditioned air, ground power, 
aircraft docking, potable water), (4) gateroom podiums, (5) gateroom seating, (6) 
baggage system, and (7) associated financing costs, as described in more detail below. 

Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) ($8,317,849) 

The CUTE systems in the ITC are facilities that allow for all 24 airlines in the ITC to use 
one system instead of individual systems for passenger processing to make more efficient 
use of space and equipment, including ticket check-in and baggage transfer facilities. 
They also include: 

Visual Information Displays ($4,984,649) 

« Flight Information Displays (FIDS) 

• Baggage Information Displays (BIDS) 

• Airline, FIS, and gateroom information 

• Dynamic display systems 

The visual information display system (VIDS) graphically displays flight 
information held in the airport operational database and automatically maintains 
flight information. Several types of display monitors are used to transmit 
information, including: 500 Flight Information Display (FIDs) monitors, 13 
Baggage Information Display (BIDs) monitors, and other dynamic display systems 
such as 436 Light Emitted Displays (LEDs), 24 Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs), 
and 12 plasma screens. VIDS also incorporates a visual paging system using 43 
monitors. 

Gate Management System ($1,759,017) 

The gate management system allows Airport staff to monitor the use of all 
airport gates, ticket counters, and baggage conveyors in the new ITC and to 
work aggressively with airlines to ensure there are no barriers to new entrants. 
The system provides the Airport with greatly enhanced abilities to monitor 
facility usage in the ITC through computer-generated reports from the Airport 
operations database. This technology provides real time capability for Airport 
staff to monitor ITC gate utilization rates, aircraft turn times, and any other 
related information. This provides the Airport with the capability to closely 
monitor gate-scheduling practices and to ensure maximum gate utilization 
rates within the ITC. 



Attachment I 
Page 9 or. lT~ 



Master Clock System ($275,324) 

The Master Clock System is a chrono-log digital time display system. The time-of- 
day is displayed in a 12-hour format. The system is capable of a 24-hour format 
display. The system of time is distributed in hours, minutes, and seconds through 
low-voltage cabling to 1 1 1 master clock remote displays that are located hundreds of 
feet from the master clock and each other. If, for any reason, the remote display loses 
its data signal, the remote display will sense the loss and automatically keep time on 
its own, and warn of its independence from the master clock. 

Other project components include: 

Construction related to the installation of bomb detection devices and baggage 
handling security screening to conform to FAR 108 and a baggage reconciliation 
system, both of which are integrated with the baggage system (described below). 

Baggage System Security Screening Devices ($4,794,000) 

All bags placed into the baggage handling systems are processed through the baggage 

security system. The baggage security system consists of four stages as described 

below and illustrated on the drawing at the end of this section. 

Stage 1: Five Perkin Elmer Z-Scan x-ray units are located on each concourse and fed 

from three main lines on each side. These machines have the capability to 

automatically screen baggage for threat objects and, if no objects are found, send the 

bag to the baggage sortation scanners and the makeup units. Currently, approximately 

40% of baggage is automatically cleared. 

Stage 2: Baggage that cannot be automatically cleared at stage 1 is presented to 

security screener operators who are centrally located in an office on level one of the 

north shoulder building. Screeners examine each x-ray image and either clear the bag 

to the sortation system or allow the bag to continue to stage 3. Currently, 4% to 9% of 

baggage is sent to Stage 3 for further analysis. 

Stage 3: Two Invision CTX 9000 three-dimensional x-ray certified explosion 

detection systems are located on each concourse. Images of baggage sent to these 

devices are presented to the security screener operators in the screening room for 

clearance or further inspection. Less than 1% of baggage is sent to Stage 4 for manual 

inspection. 

Stage 4: Baggage that cannot be cleared in Stage 3 is routed by conveyor to the 

baggage inspection room on the associated concourse. These bags are first inspected 

by explosive trace detection systems and further manually inspected in the presence 

of the passenger. 

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID): Selected baggage is routed positively to 

Stage 3 by encoding a radio frequency tag during the baggage acceptance process and 

sandwiching this tag between the two halves of the baggage routing tag. Radio 

frequency scanners in the baggage conveyor system sense the RFID tag and ensure 

positive routing of the bag to one of the CTX certified explosion detection systems. 

Oversize Baggage: A Perkin Elmer Z-Scan x-ray is positioned at each of the two 

oversize baggage acceptance counters on level three of the check-in counter lobby. 

Contingency. One Invision CTX 5000 is positioned at level one of each shoulder 

building to be used as a contingency in the event that one or more of the inline CTX 



Attachment I 
Page 10 of 13 



9000s is unavailable. These machines are also used to screen baggage that arrives at 
the flight makeup units without satisfactorily passing the baggage screening system. 

The other components include: 

• Communications Infrastructure SSR Buildout (322,566,077) 

• International Terminal Control Plant (51,603,074) 



Loading Bridges ($14,780,008) 

The passenger loading bridges provide a convenient, weather-protected walkway between 
the airport terminal building and commercial aircraft for enplaning and deplaning airline 
passengers. Each loading bridge maneuvers on the parking ramp within its area of operation. 
They can be raised, lowered, extended, or retracted to accommodate various aircraft. They 
can also be raised or lowered simultaneously with the extension, retraction, and movement 
on the ramp. Two of the loading bridges are specially designed to accommodate the New 
Large Aircraft. 

Associated systems connected to the passenger loading bridges include: 

3. a. Preconditioned Air Boarding Area A ($1,362,951) Air Boarding Area G 
($1,472,391 

The preconditioned air system consists of two primary chillers piped in series 
operations and 24 passenger loading bridge mounted air-handling units. It also 
includes a large ice tank with encapsulated ice balls. The purpose of the chiller 
system is to work in conjunction with passenger loading bridge air handling units 
to provide automated cabin heating and cooling during ramp servicing while 
aircraft are being cleaned and serviced for their next flight. The system is 
designed around the need for narrow-body, wide-body, and jumbo aircraft heating 
and cooling. 
3. b. Ground Power Boarding Area A ($1,150,569) Boarding Area G 

($1,401,434) 
The 400-hertz ground electrical power system supplies electrical power to an 
aircraft when it is parked during servicing, enplaning, or deplaning operations. It 
is a solid-state system that converts 60-hertz house current to 400-hertz electrical 
power. The ground power system is normally active when the aircraft engine 
driven generators, auxiliary power unit, or portable ground power unit are not 
supplying electrical power to aircraft systems. 

3. c. Aircraft Docking Boarding Area A ($195,840) Boarding Area G 
($195,840) 

The aircraft docking system (ADS) is a fail-safe device used to control ramp 
positioning during aircraft parking operations. The ramp agent is able to control 
aircraft parking while observing all other critical ramp operations. The ADS 
allows the ramp agent to alert the pilot immediately of an emergency that requires 
the aircraft to come to a complete stop, or slow-down for precautions. There arc a 
total of 24 ADS units. 



45 



Attachment I _ 
Page 11 of 13 



3. d. Potable Water (Sl.060.800) 

A potable water system is mounted beneath each passenger loading bridge. When an 
aircraft is parked for passenger loading/off-loading ramp agents or other service 
personnel unwind a water hose from a reel system and attach it to the aircraft's water 
fill coupler. Upon completion of water servicing the hose is removed from the 
aircraft and wound back into the water hose cabinet via the motorized unit. There are 
a total of 24 potable water systems, one for each passenger gate. 

1. Gateroom Podiums (S714,000) 

Gateroom podiums support airline boarding processes by providing a platform for ticket and 
boarding pass acceptance and housing common use equipment. They consist of 24 
gateroom houses, 132 individual CUTE workstations, 88 automated boarding pass printers, 
22 bag tag printers, 22 dot-matrix printers, 23 FIDS, and 22 LED monitors. 

2. Gateroom Seating (S3,672,000) 

Currently, there are 12 gaterooms on Boarding Area G and 9 gaterooms on Boarding 
Area A. Each gateroom has seating for 310 people, which is designed to support 
approximately 65% of the passenger volume in each boarding area. 

3. Baggage System ($50,357,442) 

The International Terminal Baggage Handling System (BHS) is divided into two 
separate base systems — an Inbound Baggage System and an Outbound Baggage 
System. There are eight subsystems in addition to the two base systems: Transfer 
Recheck, Re-accommodation Counter Belt, North Terminal Connection, Boarding 
Area Cross-over, Inbound Claim Sub-system. 

Inbound Baggage System - This system includes all input conveyors located on the 
Ground Level of the ITC, which feed a series of 12 baggage claim devices on the 
Arrivals Level. Two of the baggage claim devices are designated for domestic 
arrivals. Also included in the inbound portion are two oversize conveyor lines, which 
also terminate on the Arrivals Level. 

Outbound Baggage System - This system includes the Federal Inspection Service 
(FIS) recheck conveyor system located on the Arrivals Level. This extends to a sort 
device on the Ground Level and terminates at the sort devices located in Boarding 
Areas "A" and "G". A Security Screening System is located on both the north and 
south sides of the International Terminal, where bags are inspected and then 
conveyed to the boarding areas or the reconciliation room on the Ground Level. Also 
included in the Outbound system are two oversize conveyors originating on the 
Departures Level, which bypass the Security Screening Process and terminate in the 
baggage makeup area, where bags are subsequently screened. In addition, a scale in 
the baggage check in counters at every ticket counter position is included. 
Transfer Recheck Subsystem - This subsystem consists of a series of conveyors and 
21 re-accommodation counter positions with a scale in each bag-well. These 
conveyors, which originate on the Arrivals Level of the International Terminal 
Building, descend to the Ground Level where they either merge into the base 
outbound system upstream of the Security Screening Area or join the North Terminal 
Connection. 



46 



Attachment I 
Page 12 of 13 



Re-accommodation Counter Belt Subsystem - This subsystem provides scales for 

each of the re-accommodation counter positions. 

North Terminal Connection Subsystem - This subsystem connects both the North 

Transfer recheck and the base Outbound Systems with the existing North Terminal 

Building via three conveyor lines. Two of these lines connect to the Outbound 

System of the North Terminal and one connects with the Outbound System of the 

International Terminal. 

Boarding Area Cross-over Subsystem - This subsystem consists of a series of 

conveyors, which transfer bags from one boarding area to the other through the 

International Terminal. This subsystem is composed of four independent conveyor 

lines, one of which originate in one boarding area, transverse the International 

Terminal Ground Level, and merge into the outbound system of the omer boarding 

area. 

Inbound Claim Subsystem - This subsystem consists of feed conveyor subsystems, 

which carry inbound baggage from the ramp side load conveyors on Level 1 of the 

International Terminal Building to claim devices in the Arrivals Area, and to the 

Arrivals Area on Level 2 for passenger retrieval. 

Power Monitoring for System ($158,782) 

Financing Costs (527,105,908) 

Financing costs associated with the common use systems include such costs as interest 
expense, capitalized interest, and credit enhancement on Airport revenue bonds issued for 
these improvements. 



In addition to the information project and cost information that has been resubmitted in 
this memorandum of May 16, 2002, the Budget Analyst is concerned that PFC 
Application #2 includes a notation referencing $4,450,000 in Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) Grant monies. This is a common practice when preparing PFC 
applications. In order to preserve funding options, the Airport identified one item that is 
currently eligible for AIP funding under the revised regulations implemented after 
September 11,2001. 

The application that is submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is a 
request to impose and use PFCs. There is no guarantee that the FAA will approve the 
request. Therefore, in submitting the request the Airport reserved funding options 
available on the Baggage System Security Screening Devices. The FAA approved the 
item as reimbursable with PFC revenues. As such, the Airport now has a choice regarding 
the reimbursement of this particular expenditure. 



47 



Attachment I 
Page 13 of 13 






1 jii|°^; 



fill i 1 



'j;S<bg<9;'<!3«<b?<0:i;b "Jo 



48 



Attachment I-I 
Page 1 of z 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL .AIRPORT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF S.AN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Finance and Labor Committee DATE: May 20, 2002 

FROM: Leo Fermin \U- CU Ur 

RE: Revenue Bonds for International Terminal 

As requested, this memorandum addresses the revenue bonds used to finance the projects 
eligible to be repaid with PFC2 revenues. The Airport issued 15 bond issues between 
April 1994 and December of 2000 for a total par amount of bonds of S2.85B. 

The projects that were financed with each bond issue include, the New International 
Terminal, Boarding Areas A & G, Airtrain, North and South Parking garage, North Field 
Cargo Facility, Firehouse 1, 2, & 3, Airtrain Maintenance Station and the Airtain 
Domestic Stations. 

The projects that are eligible to be repaid with PFC revenues, include special equipment 
in the International Terminal, Aprons and Taxiways. 

The Airport intends to repay a portion of these revenue bonds with revenues from PFC2 
for approved projects by the FAA. The benefits of the inteded use allows the Airport to 
reduce Rates and Charges for the Airlines and to ultimately reduce the overall debt for 
the Airport by retiring bonds when they become callable. 

The anticipated repayment dates are May 1st and November 1st of each year a deposit of 
debt service is made to the bond trustee BNY Western Trust Company. 



US 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



Airport Commission 

Master Plan Bonds 

Debt Service 

June 30, 2003 



Issue No Issue Date Par Amount Principal Interest Total 



5 


04/01/94 


$ 


90,000,000 


3 


1,820,833 


$ 


5,178,719 


$ 


6,999,552 


6 


11/01/94 


$ 


125,000,000 


$ 


2,158,333 


$ 


7,256,110 


S 


9,414,444 


8 


08/01/95 


$ 


100,000,000 


S 


1,741,667 


$ 


3,549,875 


S 


5,291,542 


9 


11/01/95 


$ 


250,000,000 


$ 


779,167 


$ 


11,381,830 


S 


12,160,997 


10 


03/01/96 


$ 


200,000,000 


s 


- 


s 


1 1 ,037,725 


s 


11,037,725 


12 


10/01/96 


S 


275,000,000 


$ 


- 


$ 


11,486,470 


s 


11,486,470 


14 


11/01/96 


S 


57,300,000 


$ 


- 


$ 


3,342,386 


$ 


3,342,386 


15 


06/01/98 


$ 


500,000,000 


$ 


8,711,667 


$ 


23,575,789 


s 


32,287,455 


16 


04/01/98 


$ 


215,000,000 


$ 


3,678,333 


$ 


10,642,446 


s 


14,320,779 


18 


07/01/98 


$ 


225,000,000 


$ 


3,850,000 


$ 


11,294,454 


s 


15,144,454 


21 


10/01/98 


$ 


82,015,000 


s 


2,029,167 


$ 


3,750,504 


s 


5,779,671 


22 


12/01/98 


$ 


125,000,000 


$ 


2,220,000 


$ 


6,175,105 


s 


8,395,105 


23 


05/01/99 


$ 


250,000,000 


$ 


706,666 


$ 


12,629,279 


$ 


13,335,945 


25 


03/01/00 


$ 


117,500,000 


$ 


1,731,667 


$ 


6,551,960 


$ 


8,283,627 


26 


12/01/00 


$ 


238,185,000 


s 


3,510,000 


$ 


12,066,948 


s 


15,576,948 


Total 


$ 2,850,000,000 


$ 


32,937,500 


$ 


139,919,600 


$ 


172,857,100 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 18 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Finance and Labor Committee DATE: May 20, 2002 

FROM: Leo Fermin 

RE: PFC Eligible Projects and Costs (Contract Detail) 

In the original request from the Budget Analyst, the Airport was asked to provide 
information on the scope, hours and hourly rates, and selection method for all of the 
contracts associated with the requested release of PFC monies. That information is being 
provided in this memorandum. At a meeting with the Budget Analyst's staff on Tuesday, 
May 14, 2001, the request was changed to include detailed information on the selection 
of each contractor including: 

> how advertised 

> method of selection (RFP, RFQ or sole source) 

> a list of firms that responded to the RFP or RFQ 

> if the contractor was selected on a sole source basis, please provide a 
detailed explanation as to why the contractor was selected in this manner 

> the criteria for selection and points allocated to each selection criteria 

> points given to each proposer (ranking of the competing firms) 

> the bid or proposal amounts given by each proposer 

> information on the selection panel including title and organization of 
panelists 

Airport staff has worked to provide this information to the Budget Analyst for his review. 
We believe that the information contained in this memorandum complies with the newly 
requested data requested by the Budget Analyst. 



51 



Attachment III 
Page 2 of 18 



Detailed Contract Information 

I. Feasibility Study 

Contractor: URS Greiner 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: This is a lump sum contract. Invoices were paid 
based on agreed upon deliverables and a final comprehensive report on the findings. 

Reimbursement Request: SI ,856,799 

Total Contract Amount: S 1 ,906,000 

PFC Eligible Amount: SI, 857,799 

A. Method of Selection: RFP 

B. Firms Responding 

1 . Landrum & Brown 

2. Leigh Fisher Associates 

3. Ricondo & Associates 

4. HNTB 

5. URS Greiner 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 



Criteria Points 

1. Overall suitability, attitude, distinguishable qualities, constitution, 25 
temperament, & compatibility to prepare the runway study. 

2. Previous experience with airport runway reconfiguration planning & 15 
design. 

3. Knowledge & experience with SFIA airport & noise issues programs. 15 

4. Project Manager airfield planning experience. 10 

5. Knowledge & experience with SIMMOD, GRADE & equivalent 10 
airspace programs. 

6. Familiarity with SFIA, State and Federal regulatory requirements & 10 
procedures. 

7. Proposed planning approach. 15 
A. Total 100 
Note: Statement of Qualification Maximum Points = 85 

Interview Maximum Points = 100 
Total Possible Points = 185 

D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: 



52 



Attachment III 
Pa?e 3 or. lo 



1 . Landrum & Brown 


147 


145 


144 


151 


2. Leigh Fisher 


155 


144 


142 


139 


3. Ricondo & Associates 


142 


144 


123 


150 


4. HNTB 


161 


148 


164 


141 


5. URS Greiner 


156 


149 


150 


159 



Services to be Provided: This project covers conducting an extensive and comprehensive 
technical evaluation of runways at San Francisco International Airport. This includes an 
evaluation of potential configurations, flight and weather conditions, noise, air and water quality, 
regulatory conditions and all aspects of determining the feasibility of embarking on a runway 
study. 

Date Work Completed: March 1999 

II. Airspace/Taxiing Planning Study 

Contractor: HNTB 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: 32,960 hours $177.70/hour 

Reimbursement Request: $5,856,857 

Total Contract Amount: $6,269,590 

PFC Eligible Amount: $5,960,000 

A. Method of Selection: RFP 

B. Firms Responding 

1. HNTB 

2. Ricondo and Associates 

3. P&D Aviation 

4. Leigh Fisher Associates 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 



Criteria Points 

1. Project Approach 30 

2. Experience and qualification of assigned Project Staff 30 

3. Management of firm and subconsultants 20 

4. Demonstrated Understanding of SFO issues, policies and objectives 20 

Total 100 

D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: 



53 



Attachment I] 
Page 4 of 18 



1. HNTB: 87.25 

2. Ricondo and Associates: 62.93 

3. P&D Aviation: 68.81 

4. Leigh Fisher Associates: 85.62 

E. Selection Panel 



Name 

1 . Greg Casto 

2. Peg Divine 

3. Tom Parks 

4. Melba Yee 



Title Organization 

Aviation Liaison AIRPROS 

Deputy Airport Director ADB, SFO 

Airport Planning Engineer Consultant 

Deputy City Attorney SFO 



Description of Services to be Provided: This project covers a planning study that 
includes a detailed passenger forecast, airfield layout planning, detailed regional airspace 
analysis, capacity analysis, construction sequencing, facility planning, and aircraft 
airspace obstruction analysis. 

Date Work Completed: Ongoing 

III. Low Frequency Noise Analysis 

Contractor: HMMH 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: Lump Sum Contract - - Invoices paid upon 
completion of specific tasks associated with noise analysis studies. 

Reimbursement Request: $212,848 

Total Contract Amount: $412,818 

PFC Eligible Amount: $412,818 

A. Method of Selection: Sole Source - -This contractor was chosen for continuity. The 
noise analysis for the Feasibility Study was also performed by HMMH. As such any 
additional analysis for the project should be performed by HMMH for a consistency 
in methodology, base assumptions and mode of analysis. 

B. Firms Responding: Not Applicable 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible: Not Applicable 

D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: Not Applicable 



54 



Attachment III 
Page 5 or. 18 



E. Selection Panel: Not Applicable 

F. Descriptions of Services to be Provided: 

1 . Formulate increase utilization of data collected through the Aircraft Noise 
Management System and Aircraft Noise Abatement Office; and 

2. Develop effective reporting methods to improve communication between various 
agencies including the Airport/Community Roundtable and internal departments; and 

3. Provide support for Aircraft Noise Abatement projects and staff, relating to 
enforcement of the Noise Abatement Resolution 88-0016, Aircraft Operations 
Bulletins, or established programs through the Airport/Community Roundtable; and 

4. Any related services, as requested by f he City. 

Date Work Completed: Ongoing 

IV. URS Environmental 

Contractor: URS 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: 56,084 hours - - S198.80/hour 

Reimbursement Request: SI 1,149,353 

Total Contract Amount: $ 1 1 ,800,000 

PFC Eligible Amount: $15,300,000 

A. Method of Selection: RFP 

B. Firms Responding 

1. Environmental Associates 

2. Environmental Science Associates 

3. EIP Associates 

4. URS Greiner- Woodward Clyde 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 

Criteria Points 

1 . Oral Presentation 50 

2. Statement of Qualification 40 

3. Other 10 
Total 100 



55 



Attachment III 
Page 6 of IS 



D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: The selection for this 

contract was performed by the FAA and the City's Office of Environmental 
Review and the ranking scores are being maintained in the FAA's files. 



E. Selection Panel 

Name Title Organization 

1. Joseph Rodriguez Planning & Programming Federal Aviation Administration 

Section Supervisor 

2. Paul Maltzer Environmental Planner 



3. Lyn Calerdine Environmental Section 

Manager 

4. Tom Gwyn Communications Section 

Director 

5. Camille Garibaldi Environmental Protection 

Specialist 



CCSF/Office of Environmental 

Review 

SFO/Airfieid Development Bureau 

SFO/Airfield Development Bureau 

Federal Aviation Administration 



F. Description of Services to be Provided: 

1. Phase 1- Project Planning and Initiation: Consists of work efforts required by the 
Consultant Team to prepare a work plan and conduct project mobilization, scoping 
and analysis of scoping comments; develop a preliminary statement of purpose and 
need and project objectives; identify preliminary project alternatives; develop a 
project description; conduct coordination with cooperating federal and other agencies; 
describe baseline environmental conditions; accomplish preliminary environmental 
analysis; and prepare the scope of services for Phase 2 of the study. 

2. Phase 2 - Draft EIS/EIR: Consists of the efforts necessary to complete the technical 
studies, conduct agency coordination and public involvement and prepare a Draft EIS 
and Draft EIR for distribution and review; conduct a Public Hearing on the Draft EIS 
and Draft EIR; perform a preliminary review of comments received on the Draft EIS; 
and prepare the scope of services for Phase 3 of the study. 

3. Phase 3 - Final EIS/EIR: Consists of efforts required to conduct a detail review of 
Draft EIS and Draft EIR comments, formulate comment responses, prepare the Final 
EIS and Final EIR, provide the FAA supporting information from the EIS for the 
preparation of the Record of Decision, and assist OER in the preparation of project 
findings. 



Date Work Completed: 



Ongoing 



56 



Attachment III 
Page 7 ot 18 



V. EIR/EIS Management 

Contractor: Environmental Science Associates (ESA) 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: 7. 1 94 Hours S 1 07.29/hour 

Reimbursement Requested: 5771,806 

Total Contract Amount: 51,1 00,000 

PFC Eligible Amount: S2,000.000 

A. Method of Selection: RFP 

B. Firms Responding 

1. Environmental Associates 

2. Environmental Science Associates 

3. EIP Associates 

4. URS Greiner- Woodward Clyde 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 

Criteria 

1 . Oral Presentation 

2. Statement of Qualification 

3. Others 

Total 



Points 

50 
40 
10 
100 



D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: The selection for this contract was 
performed by the FAA and the City's Office of Environmental Review and the 
ranking scores are being maintained in the FAA's files. 



E. Selection Panel 

Name Title 

1. Joseph Rodriguez Planning & Programming 

Section Supervisor 

2. Paul Maltzer Environmental Planner 

3. Lyn Calerdine Environmental Section 

Manager 

4. Tom Gwyn Communications Section 

Director 

5. Camille Garibaldi Environmental Protection 

Specialist 



Organization 

Federal Aviation Administration 

CCSF/Office of Environmental 

Review 

SFO/Airfield Development Bureau 

SFO/Airfield Development Bureau 

Federal Aviation Administration 



57 



Attachment II] 
Page 8 of 18 



F. Description of Services to be Provided: 

Review existing environmental conditions documentation; provide marine ecology 
assistance, prepare historical resources report; provide EIR/EIS strategic advice; 
perform environmental document review; assist in Corps of Engineers, Regional 
Board, BCDC, and State Lands permitting; and on-site staff assistance. 

Date Work Completed: Ongoing 

VI. Bay Species Database 

Contractor: California Academy of Sciences 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: Lump Sum Contract - - Invoices paid upon delivery 
of specific data and final report 

Reimbursement Requested: S145,047 

Total Contract Amount: $ 1 50,000 

PFC Eligible Amount: $150,000 

A. Method of Selection: Sole Source - - The California Academy of Sciences was 
chosen on a sole source basis because it is the only organization with the Bay Species 
sample that needed to be catalogued (such as snails, worms, and bottom-dwelling 
species). 

B. Firms Responding: Not applicable. 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible: Not applicable. 

D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: Not applicable. 

E. Selection Panei: Not applicable. 

F. Description of Services to be Provided: This project covers cataloging 
approximately 27,000 invertebrate and 1,800 ichthyology specimens collected from 
the San Francisco Bay. The computerized catalog will increase access to current 
knowledge about the existing and historic San Francisco Bay Habitats. 

Date Work Completed: Ongoing 



Attachment III 
Page 9 of 18 



VII. Mitigation Planning 

Contractor: Jones & Stokes 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: 26,336 Hours - - SI 12.36 

Reimbursement Requested: S2, 959,2 1 

Total Contract Amount: S4, 1 50,000 

PFC Eligible Amount: 52,959.210 

A. Method of Selection: REP 

B. Firms Responding 

1. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 

2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 

3. Philip Williams and Associates 

4. Zentner and Zentner 

5. Huffman and Associates 

6. LSA Associates, Inc. 

7. Ecorp Consulting, Inc. 

8. The Ellington Group, Inc. 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 

Criteria Points 

1. Project Approach and Schedule 20 

2. Assigned Project Key Staff Qualifications 25 

3. Experience of firm and subconsultants 10 

4. Project Management of subconsultants 10 

5. Demonstrated understanding of SFO issues and objectives 10 

6. Oral Interview 25 
Total 100 

D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: 

1 . Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.: 83.8 

2. Tetra Tech, Inc.: 75 

3. Philip Williams and Associates: 64.5 

4. Zentner and Zentner: 62 

5. Huffman and Associates: 60.2 

6. LSA Associates, Inc.: 55.8 

7. Ecorp Consulting, Inc.: 51.8 

8. The Ellington Group, Inc.: 36.3 



Attachment II 
Page 1U o± IB 



E. Selection Panel 

Name Title Organization 

1 . Francesca Demgen Biologist URS 

2. Janice Hutton Permitting Specialist ADB, SFO 

3. Nixon Lam Planner FOM, SFO 

4. Veda Lewis Permitting Specialist CALTRANS 

5. Greg Lyman Mitigation Engineer ADB, SFO 

6. Ashley Muller Sanitary Engineer PUC, CCSF 

F. Description of Services to be Provided: 

Evaluate potential mitigation sites, provide strategic guidance, design mitigation and 
prepare permit application documentation. This project covers the identification of 
potential mitigation sites, field survey and study of the existing habitat, and preparation of a 
Mitigation Plan for submittal to the Corps of Engineers and other regulatory and approval 
agencies. 

Date Work Completed: Ongoing 

VIII. Preliminary Marine Engineering and Analysis 

Contractor: Airfield Development Engineering Consultants (ADEC) 
Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: 115,719 Hours - - S23 1 .92/Hour 
Reimbursement Requested: S26,837,396 

Total Contract Amount: S28,667,258 
PFC Eligible Amount: 532,000,000 

Contract Selection Process 

A. Method of Selection: RFP 

B. Firms Responding 

1 . Fugro West 

2. AGS and Subsurface / Consultants, Inc. 

3. Geomatrix / OCC 

4. Treadwell & Rollo / Golder Associates 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 

Criteria Points 



Attachment III 
Page II of. 18 



Firms capability, equipment and availability of resources 
Experience and qualifications of key personnel to be assigned 
Firm's planned approach. 

References of personnel on previous/similar projects and cost 
effectiveness of such projects. 
Total: 



20 
30 
30 
20 

100 



D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm: 

1. FugroWest: 90 

2. AGS and Subsurface / Consultants. Inc.: 78 

3. Geomatrix / OCC: 67 

4. Treadwell & Rollo / Golder Associates: 73 

E. Selection Panel 



N; 


ame 


Title 


Organization 


1. 


William Cooke 


Civil/Structural Engineer 


BDC, SFO 


2. 


Peg Divine 


Deputy Airport Director 


ADB, SFO 


3. 


Michael Allen 


Senior Project Manager 


BDC, SFO 


4. 


Reed Buell 


Project Manager, Bay Bridge 


CALTRANS 


5. 


Tom Gwyn 


Communications Manager 


ADB, SFO 


6. 


Chung Tarn 


Pavement Utilities Manager 


FOM, SFO 



Description of Services to be Provided: Preliminary geotechnical investigation, marine 
circulation studies, preliminary hazardous materials investigation, preliminary foundation 
analyses and bathymetry. A Blue Ribbon Panel was convened to advise on various construction 
and technical issues. Engineering support for review of the offshore construction concepts, 
evaluation of potential borrow sites, evaluation of potential mitigation and disposal sites, the 
sediment chemistry and bioassay characterization of any proposed future airfield area, and other 
engineering support required for the EIR and EIS efforts. Also included is technical support for 
land acquisition, public relations, partnering facilitator, community support, and noise abatement 
affairs. Work necessary for detailed design. Work includes completion of geotechnical 
investigation and analyses, a wrap-up of sedimentation and bioassay work necessary for 
completion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Management Office 
(DMMO) report, review of the design and construction schedule, investigation of availability of 
labor, equipment and materials, investigation of contracting strategy, continuation of physical 
modeling in the Bay Model, analyses of Columbia River borrow material, support for land 
acquisition, community support, noise abatement affairs and partnering facilitator, complete in- 
Bay disposal study for CAD, value engineering and instrumentation of existing airfield. During 
the detail design process, providing support services that includes review of design documents. 



Date Work Completed: 



Omjoinu 



61 



Attachment III 
Page 12 ot IB 



IX. Offshore Runway Concepts 
Contractors: 

Hours and Blended Hourly Rate: - - Lump Sum Contracts Each firm was paid 
5250,000 to fully develop the appropriate concept and deliver a final report for review by 
the Blue Ribbon Panel. 

Reimbursement Requested: 51,250,000 

Total Contract Amount: 5 1 ,250,000 

PFC Eligible Amount: 51 ,250,000 

A. Method of Selection: RFP 

B. Firms Responding 

1. T.Y. Lin International/Ben C. Gerwick, Inc./Han-Padron Associates 

2. AGS, Inc. 

3. Parsons Brinkerhoff 

4. Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. 

5. The Dutra Group 

6. Reinforced Earth Co. with Treadwell Rollo & Menard 

7. Ove Arup & Partners USA 

8. Hatch, Mott, Mac Donald 

9. Float Inc. 

10. Architect's Office 

1 1 . Crang and Boake 

12. Environmental Engineers 

13. Martin E. Iorns, F.I.F.S. 

14. Russian Industrial Center 

C. Criteria for Selection and Points Possible 

Criteria Points 

1 . Concepts 60 

2. Project Approach 25 

3. Qualifications & Experience of Staff 10 

4. Qualification & Experience of Firm & Subconsultants 5 

Total 100 



Attachment III 
Page 13 of 18 



D. Points Awarded to Each Short-Listed Firm 

The Blue Ribbon Panel performed an independent selection process at an off-Airport 
site and the ranking scores were not provided to the Airfield Development Bureau. 



E. Selection Panel (Blue Ribbon Panel) 



Name 

1. George C. Hoff 

2. Graham Plant 

3. Reinhard Branley 

4. John Azeveda 

5. Alfred Yee 

6. Frieder Seible 

7. Owen Miyamoto 



Title 

Retired Engineering 

Consultant 

Chief Engineer 

Principal & Chief 

Engineer 

Chief of Operations 

Branch 

President 

President 

Private Consultant 



Organization 

Mobile Technology Co. 

Hong Kong International Airport 
Consultant Airport Engineer 

Corps of Engineers 

Applied Technology Corp. 
SEQAD, Inc. 

Hawaii State Dept. of Transportation, 
Hawaiian Airlines & Pacific Basin 
Development Council 



F. Description of Services to be Provided: 

1. Develop plans and details to describe the Runway Platform Concept based on 
Airport furnished criteria and configurations. Design efforts shall consider seismic 
impacts as well as NLA furnished aircraft loadings. 

2. Furnish a construction schedule indicating conflicts with existing controlled 
airspace operations. 

3. Develop an estimated construction cost base on prevailing labor rates and 
equipment costs. 

4. Develop estimated life cycle costs, including construction, operations, 
maintenance, inspections, and replacement costs. 

5. Produce designated information for Airport to evaluate minimization of 
environmental impacts, especially air quality, circulation and air water quality, and 
the time for runways to be back in service after an earthquake. Include the estimated 
time for inspection of structural systems. 

• This project consists of developing a design concept involving a platform 
constructed of a possible combination of floating, pile-supported and fill 
constructed platforms. 

• This project consists of developing a design concept involving a pile-supported 
platform constructed with large diameter piles and large center to center pile 
spacing using over the top construction techniques. 



63 



Attachment III 
Page 14 of 18 



• This project consists of developing a design concept involving constructing pile- 
supported platforms using widely spaced large diameter battered clustered steel 
piles and prefabricated deck components. 

• This project consists of developing a design concept involving constructing pile- 
supported platforms using widely spaced large diameter battered clustered steel 
piles and prefabricated deck components. 

• This project consists of developing a design concept involving platforms 
constructed of dredged fill utilizing installed wick drains to increase the 
consolidation, other soil improvement and surcharge options. 

Date Work Completed: September 2000. 



64 



Attachment III 
^age lb of 18 



Staffing Detail for Reimbursement 

Planning: The Planning Section is responsible for developing all traffic 
and passenger forecasts as well as assessing the need for 
airspace and taxiways. Additionally, the Planning Section 
coordinated the development of the Regional Airport Strategic 
Plan (RASP) and the Feasibility Study, which includes a 
Benefit Cost Analysis of the potential modernization of the 
runways at San Francisco International Airport. 

CCSF Staff: 



Classification 


FTE 


Period 


Total Paid 


5278 Planner II 


1.0 FTE 


June 2000-Dec 2001 


S106,577 


Total 


1.0 FTE 




5106,577 



Consultant Staff 

Lead Planner: 



Matthew Mead: Parsons Transportation 



Title | FTE 


Period | Total Paid 


Lead Planner | 1.0 FTE 


April 1999-Dec2001 5426,770 


Total 1.0 FTE 


$426,770 



Total for Planning 



$533,347 



65 



Attachment III 
Page 16 of 18 



Environmental: The Environmental Section is responsible for developing 
all of the Environmental Impact Report to meet the CEQA 
requirements and the Environmental Impact Statement to meet 
the NEPA requirements. This Section includes the contracts 
that are responsible for developing all of the technical and 
scientific data that is included as part of these two documents. 
Additionally, the disciplines of permit processing and 
application, mitigation design and development, and overall 
management of the multiple agencies associated with this 
endeavor fall under the responsibilities of the Environmental 
Section. 

CCSF Staff 



Classification 


FTE 


Period 


Total Paid 


0933 Mgr. IX 


1 .0 FTE 


March 1999-Dec2001 


$354,291 


5241 Civil Engr. 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999/Dec2001 


$245,516 


5298 Planner III 


1.0 FTE 


Sept. 2000-Oct. 2001 


$80,726 


Total 


3.0 FTE 




$680,533 



Consultants 



Permit Planner 
EIR/EIS Coordinator 



Dr. Janice Hutton, Subconsultant thru Luster/GKO 

Michele DelDuca, Subconsultant thru Environmental Service 

Associates 

(Ms. DelDuca was paid under the ESA Contract 



Title 


FTE 


Period 


Total Paid 


Permit Planner 


1 .0 FTE 


Aug 1999-June2001 


$220,637 


EIR/EIS Coord. 


1 .0 FTE 


Sept. 1999-Dec2001 


<T^< jjc % H< 


Total 


2.0 FTE 




$220,637 



'**$388,980 of the $771,806 paid to ESA represents the payment to Ms. 
DelDuca 



Total for Environmental 



$901,170 



66 



Attachment III 
Page 17 of 18 



Marine Structures: The Marine Structures Section is responsible 
for all preliminary engineering associated with the development 
of the EIR and EIS documents. This includes the mapping of 
the Bay bottom, obtaining core samples of the various types and 
levels of Bay mud, reviewing all construction design concepts 
and methodologies, and reviewing all potential engineering 
scheduling. 

CCSF Staff 



Classification 


FTE 


Period 


Total Paid 


5204 Assoc Engr. 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999-Nov. 2001 


$129,698 


145 Exec Secty. I 


1 .0 FTE 


March 1999-Dec. 2001 


5120,528 


Total 


1.0 FTE 




250,226 



Consultants 

Manager Marine Structures William Cooke Sub Consultant to Luster/GKO 



Title 


FTE 


Period 


Total Paid 


Marine Struct. Mgr. 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999-Sept 2001 


S568,142 


Total 


1.0 FTE 




$568,142 



Total Marine Structures 



$818,368 



67 



Attachment III 
Page 18 of 18 

Pavement and Utilities: The Pavement and Utilities Section is 
responsible for all of the drawing, charts, and other graphics 
that will be included in both environmental documents. 
Additionally, should the project move forward, the Pavement 
and Utilities Section would draft all items such as Navigational 
Aids (NAVAIDS) utility conduits, runway pavement, the 
Emergency Response Facility (ERP) and the new control tower. 

CCSF Staff 



Classification 


FTE 


Period 


Total Paid 


0941 Mgr. X 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999-Dec 2001 


$313,983 


5241 Civil Engr. 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999-Dec 2001 


5228,080 


5366 Engr Assoc I 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999-Dec 2001 


$171,375 


5364 Cv.Eng Assoc I 


1.0 FTE 


May 2000-Dec 2001 


$102,810 


5241 Civil Engr. 


1.0 FTE 


March 1999-Dec 2001 


$180,684 


1450 Exec Secty. I 


1.0 FTE 


Nov. 2000-Dec. 2001 


$66,084 


5380 Eng. Intern 


1 .0 FTE 


June 2000 - Aug 2001 


$32,230 


Total 


7.0 FTE 




$1,095,246 



68 



Attachment IV 



San Francisco International Airport 




May 23, 2002 



via fax 



p.O.L'ux aO'j/ 
id 6:0 821 5000 

r«6Mi B.'l bOOS 
www flv^t.vrom 



Ms. Anna LaFone 
Budger Analyst Office 
1390 Market Street, Ste. 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Anna, 

commishom I arn writing to explain differences in figures provided to you. The figure of 
city *«p county 5224,034,821 was the amount projected in schedule lof 14 CFR 158 in the application 
iFuwrRAKcisco submitted to the FAA in August 2001. This was the amount estimated to be collected at 
that time. The FAA approved the collection of amounts up to this sum. At that time, this 

(11116 I. »(1C"WM ia r r I 

MAygfi figure based on enplaned projections was approximate S400.000 less than the total of 
eligible costs. 

MINKY t UCKMAN 

"""""" The figure of $224,467,913 is the total of all projects eligible to be paid with PFC 
LAnriY M4770LA monies. We provided This number in response to a request for a listing of projects 
nanamm eligible to be financed with PFC monies. 



. i STRUMS* 



The above two sums vary because the first figure reflects what we projected we would 
,0 " collect last August based on the enplaned passenger forecasts at that time. 



C»n»i 1T0 



vokt omtaon 



The figure of 3224,034,821 in the proposed ordinance matches the figure in the Federal 
Register and is the final amount approved by the FAA. 

The figure of 5220,017,913 appears in the schedule submitted on May 7, 2002. This 
schedule moves S4.5 million to the discretionary grant column in order to '"earmark" with 
the FAA some sums to be preserved for future discretionary grants. As explained in the 
last page of the May 20, 2000 memorandum "PFC Eligible Projects and Costs (Project 
Listing and Budget)", this is a common practice when preparing PFC applications. In 
short, if the FAA gives the Airport a S4.5 million discretionary grant, then that means the 
Airport would need to collect that much less in PFC revenues over time. 

Very truly yours. 




Leo Fcrmin 

Associate Deputy Director 

Business and Finance 



69 



MHY-li-jikJklci 13:35 _.<-••*-"- --------- -.«.-■' Cd 

Attachment I 
DENNIS J. HERRSRA Airport Division: Page 1 of 2 

CityAnorney Mara E. Rcsales 

Ajrporr Genera; CoLiP.se! 



DiR£CT Dial: (iSC) 52' -5C^5 

E-iV.aj.. rrtctZ.:zsCi&z^";,f£.cz~ 




May 15, 2002 
Via Facsimile to f4151 252-0461 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Budget; Analyst 

Harvey Rose Associates 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Misstatement in May 15, 2002 Budget Analyst Finance Committee Report for 

Item 6 -File 02-0473 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

This letter confirms my two, as yet unretumed, voice mail messages to Ms. Sarah 
Graham of your office concerning the above-referenced matter. 

I called your office to advise you that your above-referenced May 15, 2002 report to the 
Finance Committee inaccurately characterized my statements as to legal advice given to the 
Airport in the past 

The inaccurate statement in the report is at paragraph 3: 

Ms. Mara Rosales, General Counsel for the Airport, states that the 
City Attorney's Office has previously determined that the Airport is not 
required to obtain prior approval from the Board of Supervisors for 
contracts over 510,000,000 if the contract are for architectural and 
engineering services. 

In fact, I stated that many years ago former General Counsel Don Garibaldi had advised 
the Airport that he believed that construction-related professional services contracts fell within 
the exception for construction contracts contained in the Charter and thus were not subject to 
Board of Supervisors review. I indicated that the Airport had followed this advice for many 
years including throughout the recent Mas:er Plan Expansion Program though the City 
Attorney's Office had not issued a formal ooinion on this matter. 



San Francsco iNTHaNAnoNA: A.R.30WT • International Terminal 5og 1C0. 5 r "r>_oOR P.O. ocx SO?/ 

San FsanCSCO. CA M 1 2S 
RaCSPilCN: (650) £2', -5050 ■ FaCSimiie: (650)821 5051 



70 



MAY- 15-2002 10:35 CITY AT7Y OFC 



wrnv^c v^r 



Letter to Mr. Harvey Rose 

Page 2 

May 15, 2002 



5 ^34 4713 P. 02/02 
inc ^n r r-\i iwkinc t 

ftft-arhmpnl- V 

IP'a'ge 2 of 2 



Had your office extended me the courtesy it offered to review a draft of the report, as Ms. 
Graham promised me, I would have corrected the inaccuracy and this letter would have been 
unnecessary. 

Very truly yours, 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 
City Attorney 




Mara E. Rosales 
Airport General Counsel 



MERrry 

cc: Supervisor Peskin (by hand delivery) 
Supervisor Maxell (by hand delivery) 
Supervisor Daly (by hand delivery) 
John L. Martin 
Ted Lakey 



"\co--u^<\r*<<ctLnvHO£cou\co*Ai.3oc 



71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 02-0726 



Department: 
Item: 



Mayor's Office of Housing 

Resolution determining and declaring that the 
public interest and necessity demand 
improvements in the City and County of San 
Francisco consisting of financing the acquisition, 
rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, 

construction, refinancing or preservation of 
privately-owned or leased rental and housing 
affordable to low-income and moderate-income 
households, providing downpayment assistance to 
low-income and moderate-income first time 
homebuyers and paying all other costs necessary 
and convenient for effectuating those purposes, 
that the estimated cost of $250,000,000 for the 
improvements described above is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income 
and revenue of the City and County and will 
require incurring bonded indebtedness; finding that 
the proposed project is in conformity with the 
priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b) 
and with the General Plan consistency requirement 
of Administrative Code Section 2A.53. 



Description: 



The State General Obligation Bond Law requires 
that, in order for the City to issue General 
Obligation Bonds, a resolution of public interest 
and necessity must first be adopted by a two-thirds 
vote of the Board of Supervisors, and according to 
Ms. Nadia Sesay of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance, the proposed bonds must then be 
approved by two-thirds of the electorate. If the 
proposed resolution (determining and declaring 
that public interest and necessity justify the 
proposed bonds) is approved by a two-thirds vote of 
the Board of Supervisors, an ordinance will be 
introduced to provide for the proposed General 
Obligation Bond measure to be scheduled for a vote 
by the San Francisco electorate on November 5, 
2002. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

The proposed $250,000,000 General Obligation 
Bond Issue submitted by the Mayor's Office of 
Housing would be issued over a five-year period, 
beginning in June of 2003, at $50,000,000 per year 
to provide $250,000,000 for the Affordable Housing 
and Home Ownership Bond Program. 

In 1996, San Francisco voters approved Proposition 
A General Obligation bonds in the amount of 
$100,000,000 for the Affordable Housing and Home 
Ownership Bond Program. Mr. Joe LaTorre of the 
Mayor's Office of Housing reports that the subject 
proposed bond funds would continue funding of the 
Affordable Housing and Home Ownership Bond 
Program. Mr. LaTorre states that, excluding the 
estimated $2,000,000 in Bond Issuance Costs, 74 
percent of the bond proceeds, or $183,520,000, 
would be allocated to the Housing Development 
Account to fund loans and grants made to 
developers of affordable rental housing for low- 
income 1 households who meet eligibility criteria 
and agree to comply with the long-term 
affordability requirements of the program. Mr. 
LaTorre states that the remaining 26 percent of the 
bond proceeds, or $64,480,000, would be allocated 
to the Homeownership Assistance Account to fund 
the construction of new home ownership housing 
and to fund downpayment assistance loans made to 
low-income and moderate-income 2 first-time 
homebuyers. 

Budget: Amount 

Housing Development Account $183,520,000 

Homeownership Assistance Account 64,480.000 

Bond Issuance Costs 2.000.000 

Total $250,000,000 



' Low-income households are defined as those households earning 60 percent or less of the San Francisco 
Metropolitan Statistical Area median income. In 2002, low-income households ranged from an annual 
income of 536,150 for a one person household to 551,650 for a four person household 
: Moderate-income households are defined as those households earning up to 100 percent of the San 
Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area median income. In 2002, moderate-income households ran 
from an annual income of 560,250 for a one person household to 586,100 for a four person househ 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. Ms. Karen Ribble of the Mayor's Office of Public 

Finance estimates that the proposed bonds would 
bear an overall effective interest rate of 
approximately 7.5 percent. 

2. Ms. Ribble advises that it is anticipated that 
there would be five separate bond issuances over 
the course of the project for the total amount of 
$250,000,000 between 2003 and 2007. Each of the 
bonds would have a 20-year life. According to Ms. 
Ribble, the proposed bonds in the amount of 
$250,000,000 would result in total debt service of 
approximately $485,487,917 over the proposed 24- 
year bond period. Average debt service payment 
per year would be approximately $20,228,663. 

3. According to Ms. Ribble, if the $250,000,000 in 
General Obligation Affordable Housing and Home 
Ownership bonds were to be issued, the proposed 
bonds in the amount of $250,000,000 would result 
in an increase in the Property Tax rate of 
approximately $0.031367 per $100 of assessed 
value. At that rate, the owner of a single-family 
residence assessed at $400,000, assuming the 
$7,000 homeowner's exemption, would pay an 
initial estimated $123.27 in additional annual 
Property Taxes due to the issuance of the proposed 
$250,000,000 in bonds. 

4. Ms. Ribble states that the City's General 
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to 
three percent of the City's net assessed property 
value, is $2,617,870,061 based on a net assessed 
valuation of $87,262,335,367 for Fiscal Year 2001- 
2002. Ms. Ribble states that, as of July 1, 2002, the 
City will have outstanding $919,220,000 aggregate 
principal amount of General Obligation Bonds, not 
including the subject Bonds under this resolution. 
Therefore, Ms. Ribble advises that the City's 
current available General Obligation bonding 
capacity is approximately $1,698,650,061. The 
Budget Analyst notes that up to an additional 
$6,500,000 in Zoo Facilities Bonds is pending 
approval by the Board of Supervisors, which would 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



result in the City's remaining debt capacity being 
reduced to $1,692,150,061 (File 02-0759). 

If the subject bond issue of $250,000,000 proposed 
for the November 5, 2002, ballot were to be 
approved by voters, and all $250,000,000 in bonds 
were issued in FY 2002-2003, the remaining 
General Obligation bonding capacity would be 
$1,442,150,061. However, pursuant to the proposed 
plan of the Mayor's Office of Housing, Mr. LaTorre 
advises that the proposed Affordable Housing and 
Home Ownership Bonds are anticipated to be sold 
in five separate issuances, over a five-year period, 
thus allowing for a slightly larger General 
Obligation bonding capacity to remain each year 
until all of the bonds are sold during the five-year 
period. According to Ms. Ribble, the amount of 
debt that could be issued in any given year is partly 
a function of the level of payments on existing debt, 
which fluctuates as older bond issues are retired 
and new bonds are issued. 

5. Mr. LaTorre reports that the Mayor's Office of 
Housing has previously submitted a proposal for 
the $250,000,000 General Obligation Bond 
measure to the Capital Improvement Advisory 
Committee (CIAC) on May 17, 2002. According to 
Mr. Julian Low of the Mayor's Office of Finance, 
the CIAC will review the proposed Affordable 
Housing and Home Ownership General Obligation 
Bonds at the CIAC's meeting on May 29, 2002. 

6. If the Board of Supervisors approves the 
proposed resolution and the electorate 
subsequently approves the $250,000,000 in 
Affordable Housing and Home Ownership General 
Obligation Bonds, the subsequent, issuance and 
sale of such bonds would require approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, expenditure of 
any of the proceeds of the proposed General 
Obligation Bonds by the Mayor's Office of Housing 
would also require appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. Pursuant to Motion M02-48, approved by the 
Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2002, and M02- 
46 also approved by the Board of Supervisors on 
March 18, 2002, the Budget Analyst has conducted 
an expedited limited review of the management of 
the existing Affordable Housing and Home 
Ownership Bond Program (the "Program"), as 
administered by the Mayor's Office of Housing 
(MOH). The direction from the Board of 
Supervisors was to audit already expended and/or 
committed bond funds, provide verified answers to 
eight specific questions concerning the Program's 
efficiency and effectiveness, and to report on any 
other issues found during the limited review. As of 
the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst is 
finalizing a draft report presenting the results of 
this limited review. The final report to the Board of 
Supervisors will be issued during the first week of 
June of 2002. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 02-0759 



Department: 



Item: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 
Recreation and Parks Department 
(RPD) 



San Francisco Zoo 



Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to 
exceed $6,500,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), 
Series 2002A; prescribing the form and terms of said bonds; 
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration 
of said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories 
and other agents for said bonds; providing for the 
establishment of accounts related thereto; approving the 
forms of official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to 
Sell Bonds; approving the form and execution of the Official 
Statement relating thereto; approving the form of the 
Continuing Disclosure Certificate; amending Section 9(b) of 
the Authorizing Resolution to change the principal 
payments from each December 15 to each June 15; 
approving modifications to documents; ratifying certain 
actions previously taken; and granting general authority to 
City officials to take necessary actions in connection with 
the authorization, issuance, sale, and delivery of said 
bonds. 



Amount: 



Series 
2002A 



Description 
Zoo Facilities Bond 



Amount 
$6,500,000 



Description: 



On June 3, 1997, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $48,000,000 in General Obligation bonds to 
provide funding for the acquisition, construction, and/or 
reconstruction of facilities for the San Francisco Zoo. On 
June 29, 1999, the City sold the first series of bonds on 
behalf of the San Francisco Zoo in the amount of 
$16,845,000 (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), Series 1999C. On 
June 14, 2000, the City sold the second series of bonds on 
behalf of the San Francisco Zoo in the amount of 
$17,440,000 (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), Series 2000B. 
The remaining authorized amount of unsold bonds is 
$13,715,000 ($48,000,000 less S16, 845,000 less 
$17,440,000). Approval of this request for authorization to 
sell $6,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds would Leave 
$7,215,000 in authorized, but unsold, bonds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Proceeds from the proposed sale of the third series of Zoo 
Facilities bonds, which are the subject, of this resolution 
would be used as follows: 



Project Amount 

Africa! Savanna construction $4,388,184 

Infrastructure & Power Transformers 295,700 

Demolish Fleishhacker Building 204,300 

Bid Contingency (see Comment No. 6) 1.120,053 

Subtotal $6,008,2;; 

Bond Issuance Costs 200.0 ! 

Total $6,208,2! 



Attachments I and II, provided by the Zoo, contain 
additional budget details and a description of the Africa! 
Savanna project, the Infrastructure and Power 
Transformers project and the Demolish the Fleishhacker 
Building project. As shown in Attachment II, these three 
projects would be partially funded from the proposed 
subject bond proceeds of $6,500,000. As noted in the table 
above, the total estimated project costs are $6,208,237, 
which is $291,763 less than the proposed sale of up to 
$6,500,000 in Series 2002A General Obligation Bonds. Ms. 
Karen Ribble of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance states 
that although the subject resolution provides for the sale of 
up to $6,500,000, only the actual amount of General 
Obligation Bonds needed for the projects would be sold, or 
approximately $6,210,000 given that the costs of the 
projects and bond issuance total $6,208,237. 

General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would be 
as follows: 

• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for July 
17, 2002. 

• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be sold 
at an interest rate which could not exceed 12 percent per 
year and would mature no later than June 15, 2022, or 
20 years. 

• Property Taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be 
deposited in the special funds account which would be 
created specifically for this purpose. 

• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to 
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official 
statement would be available to all potential bidders for 
the bonds. 

• Bonds would be awarded to the bidder whose bid 
represents the lowest interest cost to the City. 

• The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or 
financial institutions to distribute bond interest or 
principal payments. 

Comments: 1. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate 

for the bonds could not exceed 12 percent. Ms. Ribble 
estimates that if the bonds were sold at current interest 
rates, the bonds would be sold at an overall effective 
interest rate of approximately 5.25 percent. 

2. According to Ms. Ribble, the proposed sale of Series 
2002A in the amount of up to $6,500,000 would result in 
total interest costs of approximately $4,050,000, and total 
debt service of approximately $10,550,000 ($6,500,000 plus 
$4,050,000) over the 20-year life of the bonds. Average debt 
service payment per year would be approximately $527,500. 

3. According to Ms. Ribble, the proposed Series 2002A sale 
of Zoo Facilities Bonds in the amount of $6,500,000 would 
result in an increase in the Property Tax rate of 
approximately $0.000659 per $100 of assessed value. At 
that rate, the owner of a single family residence assessed at 
$400,000, assuming the $7,000 homeowner's exemption, 
would pay an initial estimated $2.59 in additional Property 
Taxes annually due to the issuance of these bonds. 

4. Ms. Ribble states that the cost of selling $6,500,000 
Series 2002A Zoo Facilities Bonds, including fees for 
outside bond counsel, financial advisors, printing costs, 
advertising and the services of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance, the Controller's Office and City Attorney, are 
expected to be approximately $200,000, or 3.08 percent of 
the total value of the bonds issued. Attachment III, 
provided by the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, details 
the bond issuance costs. 

5. Ms. Ribble states that the City's General Obligation 
bonding capacity, which is equal to three percent of the 
City's net assessed property value, is $2,617,870,061 based 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



on a net assessed valuation of $87,262,335,367 for Fiscal 
Year 2001-2002. Ms. Ribble states that, as of July 1, 2002, 
the City will have outstanding $919,220,000 aggregate 
principal amount of General Obligation Bonds, not 
including the subject Bonds under this resolution. 
Therefore, Ms. Ribble advises that the City's current 
available General Obligation bonding capacity is 
approximately $1,698,650,061. The proposed sale of bonds 
in the total amount of $6,500,000 would reduce the City's 
bonding capacity from $1,698,650,061 to approximately 
$1,692,150,061. The Budget Analyst notes that File 02- 
0728 proposes to issue $250,000,000 in General Obligation 
Bonds for the Affordable Housing and Home Ownership 
Bond Program, which, if approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and voters, would result in the City's 
Remaining Debt Capacity being reduced to $1,442,150,061. 
However, Ms. Ribble advises that the City's available 
bonding capacity varies from time to time as bonds are 
repaid and new bonds are issued. 

6. As shown in Attachment II, the Africa! Savanna project 
is estimated to cost a total of $18,015,095, and would be 
funded from $13,656,067 in bond proceeds and bond 
interest earnings and $4,359,028 from private donations to 
the Zoological Society. Mr. Rick Mortazavi representing 
the San Francisco Zoo advises that $9,879,188 of the 
$13,656,067 in bond funds, includes the $4,388,184 in funds 
from the anticipated subject bond issuance of $6,500,000, 
and $5,491,004 ($9,879,188 less $4,388,184) in bond funds 
which were previously appropriated in FY 2001-2002 and 
FY 2000-2001 respectively. Although $4,388,184 of the 
subject bond funds for the Africa! Savanna project have 
already been appropriated, the Controller's Office has 
placed such funds on reserve pending the sale of the 
proposed subject bonds. According to Mr. Mortazavi, the 
remaining $3,776,879 ($13,656,067 less $9,879,188) in bond 
funds and bond interest earnings shown in Attachment I 
will be requested in the FY 2002-2003 budget. 

Mr. Mortazavi advises that the Zoo will not receive the 
construction bids for the Africa! Savanna project until June 
19, 2002 and, therefore, the Zoo has included a Bid 
Contingency related to this proposed third bond sale (see 
Attachment I) of 9.6 percent or $1,120,053 in case the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

construction bids for the Africa! Savanna project exceed the 
$11,689,374 construction cost estimate for the project as 
shown in Attachment II. Mr. Mortazavi notes that the 
other construction contingency of $1,107,000 shown in 
Attachment II was budgeted to allow for needed change 
orders after the construction of the Africa! Savanna project 
has begun. 

As previously noted, Ms. Ribble advises that although the 
subject resolution provides for the sale of up to $6,500,000, 
only the actual amount of General Obligation Bonds needed 
would be sold. 

Recommendations: 1. Given that the total estimated cost of the projects, 
including the Bond Contingency, plus the cost of issuance is 
$6,208,237, amend the proposed resolution to reduce the 
authorized bond issuance amount from $6,500,000 to 
$6,210,000. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 















Attac 


:hment I 






Mayor's Office of Public Finance 
Project information worksheet 






Attachments 2 & 3 of 24 - Proposed Usage of the Zoo Facilities Bond, 

Interest on Bond Funds, and the Remainder of 
the Infrastructure Bond: 


ESP2 3rd 4th 
1st Bond 2nd Bond Bond (Infr.) Bond Bond 
Project Description Sale Sale Interest Bond Sale Sale TOTA1 


Education Center 


3,741,328 






116,261 






3,857,5i 


Animal Resource Center 


2,611,125 






170,883 






2,782,0i 


Warehouse (Zoo support 
Facility) 




2,096,010 




90,000 






2,186,0 


Administration Campus 


264,411 












264,4 


Children's Zoo Barn & 
Wetlands (in A.R.C.) 


49,000 












49,0 


Quarantine & Holding 




2,542,040 




21,030 






2,563,0 


Public Art Program 


800,000 












800,0 


Repair & Replacement 


704,024 












704,0 ; 


Entrance & Zoo Street 


7,183,160 


5,896,511 




475,000 






13,554,6 


Carousel 


700,000 












700,0i 


Madagascar (Lemur Forest) 




1,414,435 










1,414,4 i 


Africa! Savanna 




5,491,004 


3,178,751 


598,128 


4,388,184 




13,656,0' 


Great Ape Forest 












7,706,763 


7,706,7 1 


Power Transformers 
(Infrastructure) 










295,700 




295,7) 


Demolish Fleishhacker 
Building 










204,300 




204,2) 


DPW Program Management 


350,000 












350,C] 


Bond Establishment Costs 


441,952 












441 ,S 2 


Bid Allowance/Contingency 










1,120,053 




1, 120,(3 


Infrastructure Allowance 








28,698 






28,(B 


TOTAL 


16,845,000 


17,440,000 


3,178,751 


1,500,000 


6,008,237 


7,706,763 


52,678,™ 
























82 











Attachment II 
Page 1 oT 7 



[ayor's Office of Public Finance 
Project information worksheet 



Attachment 1 of 24 - Preamble for Worksheet Attachments to Item 1 



Background The San Francisco Zoo Phase II Master Plan will cost $92.8 million 

to complete and will be funded by the $48 million 1997 Zoo 
Facilities Bond, S3.17Sm (approx) of Interest earned on the Bond 
Money, SI. 5 million transferred from the remainder of the 1990 
Earthquake Safety Program Bond (ESP2), S40 million from private 
donations and S300 thousand from a State Bond that is treated as 
Zoological society funding. 



Description of 
Funding Sources 



The Plan includes the redevelopment of approximately half of the 
zoo including the following: Africa savanna, great ape forest, 
Madagascar exhibit (Lemur forest), new entrance and parking area, 
public art program, children's zoo renovations, renovations of the 
existing carousel, repair & replacement of existing facilities to 
conform with the requirements of the USDA, education center, 
animal resource center, warehouse, quarantine & holding facility, 
augmentation of the site infrastructure and administrative space. 
The work under the plan will be completed in the year 2004. 

1997 Zoo Facilities Bond: In 1997, the voters of San Francisco 
approved a Bond Issuance in the amount of S48 million for 
improvements to the San Francisco Zoo. Two Bond sales have been 
completed, the First for SI 6.845.000 and the second for 
SI 7.440.000. This document is a request for the third Bond Sale for 
S6. 008.237 which will allow the San Francisco Zoological Society 
and the DPW to commence with the Construction Contract for the 
Africa! Savanna scheduled for contract award August 12. 2002. 



Private Funding: The San Francisco Zoological Society (SFZS) 
will raise S40 million from private donations to support the 
program. These funds will be used for Zoo program management 
and a portion of the Master Plan design and construction costs. 
SFZS has currently raised S23 million and has confirmed pledges 
totaling S40 million, including the money raised to date. 



83 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 7 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 
Project information worksheet 



Attachment 15 of 24- Africa! Savanna 



PIW 
REF' 



SUBJECT 



Project Description 



Current Budget 



Current Site Use 



DETAILS 



The Africa! Savanna together with the Great Ape Forest exhibit 
will be approximately 340,000 SF of new animal exhibits. The 
Africa! Savanna will provide a natural habitat for Giraffe, Zebra, 
Eland, Nyala, Duiker and many bird species. Site improvements 
include extensive landscaping, visitor pathways and observation 
shelters and new animal management facilities, including a 
hoofstock barn and giraffe bam. 

The Budget for this Project is $18,015,095, of which $5,491,004 
will be from the Second Bond Sale, $3,178,751 from Bond 
Interest, $598,128 from the ESP Bond and $4,388,184 from the 
Third Bond Sale. The remainder will be financed by private 
donations to the Zoological Society. The Source and Uses of the 
funds will be: 

Cost Account Zoo Bond Sales/ Zoo Capital Total 



Bond Interest 




Private A/E Services 


$1,946,839 


URS& Zoo Staff Design 


68,000 


Construction City $1 1 ,689,374 




Construction Zoo 


361,000 


Fees & Permits 110,000 




Furniture & Fittings 


490,132 


Graphics 


1,425,750 


BCM Const'n Mgt 859,693 




Mgmt - Zoo 


67.307 


Construction 




Contingency 1.107.000 





Total 



$13,656,067 $4,359,028 $18,015,095 



This new facility will provide an additional exhibit that will be 
constructed on undeveloped Zoo property. 



4. Intended Site Use With an aim to inspire conservation, these exhibits will provide 

84 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 7 

zoo visitors with views of African wildlife in the context of 
Africa-like landscape, encouraging the animals to engage in 
interesting and diverse natural behaviors. A Field Station and 
the Giraffe barn will provide indoor interpretive areas for Zoo 

2uests. 



5. 


Project Funding 
Required 


June 24, 2002 


6. 


Funds Required & 
Use of Funds 


Refer above for d 


7. 


Funds Expenditure 


Expenditure will 


8. 


Project Milestones 


Bid Receipt Date 




Bid Phase 


Award Date 



6/19/2002 
8/12/2002 



Project Milestones 
Completion Date 



Construction Start 9/3/2002 

Substantial Completion 1 1/27/2003 



11. Officials briefed in 

past 6 Months 



Officers of DPW/ BOA and BCM 



12. 



Director 
Involvement 



Director of Public works. 



85 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of 7 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 
Project information worksheet 



Attachment 17 of 24 - Infrastructure & Power Transformers 



PIW 
REF' 



SUBJECT 



DETAILS 



Project Description 



Implementation of the Infrastructure Master Plan provided only 
the general utility needs of the zoo. Additional infrastructure 
design work was necessary to compliment the Infrastructure 
Master Plan by designing the specific utility routes and upgrades 
needed to connect the recently completed infrastnicture corridor 
to within 5 feet of newly completed facilities and exhibits. As 
such, a contract was negotiated to complete the additional design 
work needed to connect the infrastructure corridor with the new 
facilities and exhibits and to augment the capacity of the electric, 
power distribution system by the addition of two new power 
transformers. 



Current Budget 



The construction of the extension to the infrastructure corridor 
has been included in the work to be performed as part of the 
Entry & Zoo Street Project. 

The Budget for this Project is $566,482 of which $295,700 will 
come from the Third Bond Sale and the remainder financed by 
the Zoological society from private donations. The Source and 
Uses of the funds was / will be: 



Cost Account 

Private A/E Services 
BOA/BOE Services 
Construction City 
Construction Zoo 
Fees & Permits 
Contingency 

Total 



Bond 



$295.700 



$295 700 



Zoo Capital 
$200,000 



70.282 



$270,282 



Total 



$566,482 



Current Site Use These transformers augment the power supply capacity at the 

Zoo necessary to supply the new facilities and exhibits and will 
be constructed on undeveloped Zoo property. 

Intended Site Use The infrastructure included in the project includes providing 



86 



Attachment II 
Page 5 of 7 



natural gas, potable water, recycled water, groundwater, 
electrical and communication service to Zoo facilities. 



5. Project Funding June 24, 2002 
Required 

6. Funds Required & Refer above for details of funds provided and their usage 
Use of Funds 

7. Funds Expenditure Expenditure will commence September 2002 

8. Project Milestones Completed 
Bid Phase 



11. 



Project Milestones Substantial Completion 11/27/2003 

Completion Date 

Officials briefed Officers of DPW/ BOA and BCM 

past 6 Months 



12. 



Directors 
Involvement 



Director of Public works. 



87 



Attachment II 
Page 6 of 7 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Project information worksheet 



Attachment 17A of 24 - Demolish Fleishhacker Building 



PIW 
REF' 



SUBJECT 



DETAILS 



Project Description 



The area to the immediate west of the existing Zoo, known as the 
Fleishhacker site, is the former location of the Fleishhacker Pool anc 
site of the abandoned Fleishhacker Bath House. As part of the San 
Francisco Zoo Infrastructure Master Plan Project, a wet weather lift 
station is currently being constructed at the northern end of the 
Fleishhacker site (near Sloat Blvd.). The wet weather lift station, a 
component of the new drainage/sewer system, will "lift" flows from 
drainage to the Westside Transport Facility. The future use of the ei 
Fleishhacker site is being coordinated with the San Francisco Public 
Works Department, which plans to construct a Recycled Water 
Treatment Plant and water storage facilities in this area. 



This project includes demolishing the abandoned Fleishhacker Pool 
building, which has been deemed un-renovatable. This project alsc 
includes landscape planting and irrigation. 



Uo R.irUot fr>r tV,ic Pr 



*rt ',<■ <C9 1 «; /too „f,-,u;^u <ron^ -jnn ,,.:ii ~ r 



from the Third Bond Sale and the remainder to be financed by the 
Public Utilities Commission, the Recreation and Parks Department 
the Zoological society from private donations. The Source and Uses 1 
the funds will be: 



Cost Account 



Zoo Bond PUC R&P Zoo Cap Total 



Demo Documents 
Landscape Consulting 



BCM Services 
Demolition City 
Fees & Permits 
Testing/Monitoring 
Contingency 



$45,000 
22,500 



522,320 

6,400 $271.800 $271.800 

8,000 

4,500 
63.080 



Total 



$204,300 $271,800 $271,800 $67,500 $815,4C 



Current Site Use This is an abandoned building. 

Intended Site Use This is a potential site for a recycled water treatment plant and wati 



Attachment I 1 
Page 7 of 7 



storage facilities. 



5. Project Funding 12/1/2002 
Required 

6. Funds Required & Refer above for details of funds provided and their usage 
Use of Funds 

7. Funds Expenditure Expenditure will commence September 2002 



Project Milestones Bid Receipt Date 
Bid Phase Award Date 



12/1/2002 
1/29/2003 



9. Project Milestones Substantial Completion 3/29/2003 

Completion Date 

11. Officials bnefed Officers of DPW/ BOA and BCM 

past 6 Months 



12. 



Directors 

Involvement 



Director of Public works. 



89 



Attachment III 



Estimated Costs of Issuance 

5/13/2002 
FINANCIAL ADVISOR FEES 
CO FINANCIAL ADVISORS 

Causeway Financial Consulting 10,000.00 

Sperry Capital Inc. 1 0,000.00 

Expenses 1 ,000.00 

BOND COUNSEL FEES - estimated 

CO BOND COUNSEL 

Liz Green 10,000.00 

Leslie Lava 10,000.00 

Expenses 

MAYOR'S OFFICE OF PUBLIC FINANCE 20,000.00 

CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 15,000.00 

TREASURER'S OFFICE 5,000.00 

CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE 25,000.00 

RATING AGENCY FEES 

Standard & Poors - per Steve Z 5/1 0/02 13, 750.00 

Moodys 10,000.00 

Fitch 10,000.00 

PRINTING/Posting 15,000.00 

Printing of Preliminary Official Statement 
and Official Statements (POS/OS) 
Posting 

ADVERTISING 

Bond Buyer 1,000.00 

Parity 1,500.00 

CONTINGENCY 42,750.00 

TOTAL COST OF ISSUANCE 200,000.00 



90 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 10 - File 02-0795 
Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Parking Authority 

Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution (1) approving the issuance of Parking Revenue 
Refunding Bonds by the San Francisco Downtown 
Parking Corporation in an amount not to exceed 
$13,700,000, to refinance bonds issued in 1993 which 
funded the expansion and remodeling of the 5 th and 
Mission Public Parking Garage; (2) approving a bond 
indenture modifying the maximum amount of the Surplus 
Revenue Fund; (3) authorizing and ratifying the execution 
and delivery of documents reasonably necessary for the 
issuance, sale and delivery of such refunding bonds; and 
(4) ratifying previous actions taken in connection 
therewith. 

Not to exceed $13,700,000 

San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation Parking 
Revenue Refunding Bonds 

According to Mr. Ron Szeto of the Department of Parking 
and Traffic (DPT), the City-owned 5 th and Mission Street 
Public Parking Garage, located at 833 Mission Street, is 
leased by the City to the San Francisco Downtown 
Parking Corporation, a nonprofit corporation. Attachment 
I, provided by DPT, contains background information on 
the San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation and 
their existing lease agreement with the City. Mr. Szeto 
advises that, under the terms of the 26-year lease 
between the City and the Corporation which began on 
April 1, 1992 and terminates on April 1, 2018 1 , the 
Corporation is required to obtain Board of Supervisors 
approval for the issuance of tax-exempt bonds and the 
execution of various documents related to such bonds. In 
1993, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Corporation to issue $15,800,000 in Parking Revenue 
Bonds to upgrade and expand the 5 th and Mission Garage 
by adding approximately 700 parking spaces on two 



1 According to the terms of the lease between the City and the Corporation, the [ease period began on 
April 1, 1992 and terminates on the earlier of 50 years (March :>1 . 20 12) or the date of the last debt 

service payim-nl. (April 1, 2018). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



additional parking levels. According to Ms. Nadia Sesay 
of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the outstanding 
principal amount of debt from the original 1993 
$15,800,000 bond issuance is $12,785,000 as of May 20, 
2002. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation to issue 
tax-exempt Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds in an 
amount not to exceed $13,700,000, in order to refund the 
1993 Parking Revenue Bonds. According to Mr. Szeto, 
these Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds would be repaid 
from the gross receipts of the 5 th and Mission Garage. 
According to Mr. Szeto, these Parking Revenue Refunding 
Bonds, as with the original 1993 Parking Revenue Bonds, 
do not require the City's General Fund to repay the 
bonds. 

According to Ms. Sesay, the existing 1993 Parking 
Revenue Bonds have interest rates of between 6.15 
percent and 6.65 percent and were issued with a 25-year 
term, with a final payment date on April 1, 2018. The 
1993 Parking Revenue Bonds can be called from investors 
on or after April 1, 2003. According to Ms. Sesay, the 
estimated true interest cost for the subject proposed 
Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds is 4.96 percent and 
the bonds would have an approximately 16-year term 
with the final payment still due on April 1, 2018. 
Attachment II, provided by the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance, is a debt service comparison between the 1993 
Parking Revenue Bonds and the proposed Parking 
Revenue Refunding Bonds. 

As shown in Attachment II, the proposed refinancing of 
the 1993 Parking Revenue Bonds will result in an 
estimated total net present value savings in aggregate 
debt service of $609,149.29, over the 16-year term of the 
bonds. This estimated savings is based on a par amount of 
$12,785,000 (the outstanding principal amount of debt on 
the original 1993 bonds) at an average annual interest 
rate of 4.96 percent for a term of 16 years, according to 
Ms. Sesay. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

92 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



According to the terms of the existing indenture between 
the Corporation and the Bank of America National Trust 
and Savings Association for the 1993 Parking Revenue 
Bonds, the Corporation retains 15 percent up to 
$1,000,000 maximum of net annual revenues 2 from the 
operation of the 5 th and Mission Garage in a Surplus 
Revenue Fund to be used only for Garage capital 
improvements. The proposed resolution would approve an 
indenture between the Corporation and the Trustee of the 
proposed Refunding Bonds, to be selected in July of 2002 
through a competitive bid process, to increase the 
maximum amount of net revenues that the Corporation 
retains in the Surplus Revenue Fund by 50 percent from 
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000. According to the terms of the 
proposed indenture, whenever any funds are withdrawn 
for capital improvements from the Surplus Revenue 
Fund, the amount withdrawn would be replaced from 
subsequent net revenues of up to $1,500,000. However, 
the Surplus Revenue Fund could not be allocated an 
amount in excess of 15 percent of the Garage's net 
revenues in any one year. As stated by Mr. Szeto in 
Attachment I, increasing the maximum amount of the 
Surplus Revenue Fund by 50 percent is necessary to allow 
the Corporation to set aside sufficient funds to address 
needed capital improvements including concrete work on 
each of the 9 floors of the Garage and other necessary 
improvements. 

According to Mr. Szeto, the Parking and Traffic 
Commission must approve capital improvement 
expenditures from the Surplus Revenue Fund, which are 
incurred by the San Francisco Downtown Parking 
Corporation. Mr. Szeto reports that such expenditures are 
not subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

Attachment III, provided by DPT, shows the actual and 
projected sources and uses of 5 th and Mission Garage 
revenues from FY 2001-2002 to FY 2005-200(1. As shown 
in Attachment III, the balance of the Surplus Revenue 
Fund is projected to total $1,500,000 in Fiscal Year 2005- 
2006. 



2 Net revenues are equal to gross receipts less Parking Taxes, operating expenses and annual debt 
service. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Sesay, the principal that would be 

outstanding on the prior 1993 Parking Revenue Bonds 
will be $12,785,000 as of April 1, 2003 when the 1993 
Parking Revenue Bonds can be called. The prior 1993 
Parking Revenue Bonds have a Debt Service Reserve 
Fund which has a current balance of approximately 
$1,362,491. Those monies from the Debt Service Reserve 
Fund would be released when the 1993 Parking Revenue 
Bonds are defeased. 3 According to Ms. Sesay, 
approximately $1,243,918 of the $1,362,491 Debt Service 
Reserve Fund would be used to fund a new Debt Service 
Reserve Fund 4 for the proposed refunding bonds. 
According to Ms. Sesay, the balance of $118,573 
($1,362,491 less $1,243,918) would be allocated to an 
Escrow Fund for use in paying off the 1993 Parking 
Revenue Bonds. Ms. Sesay advises that a Debt Service 
Reserve Fund is required to provide for debt service 
payments in case of a funding shortfall. If a shortfall 
occurs, and the Trustee is required to pay debt service 
from this Reserve Fund, then the Reserve Fund would be 
replenished by Garage revenues. 

2. According to Ms. Sesay, the proceeds deposited in the 
Escrow Fund from the anticipated July of 2002 sale of the 
subject Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds will be held by 
a third party trustee (the "Escrow Agent") to be selected 
through a competitive bid process in June of 2002. On the 
first available call date of April 1, 2003, the Escrow Agent 
will redeem the 1993 Parking Revenue Bonds with the 
monies held in the Escrow Fund. 

3. According to Ms. Sesay, the cost of issuance cannot 
exceed $250,000 for the proposed refunding bonds. Ms. 
Sesay reports that the cost of issuance is to be paid with 



1 Defeasance is the term used to describe the termination of all rights and interests of the 
bondholders upon final payment of all debt service, in the manner required by the terms and 
conditions of the indenture. 

4 Under the terms of the proposed refunding bond issuance and in accordance with Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) Tax Regulations, the Corporation is required to fund a Debt Service Reserve Fund in 
the amount equal to the lesser of 10 percent of the par amount of the proposed Refunding Bonds, 100 
percent maximum annual debt service or 125 percent average annual debt service on the proposed 
Refunding Bonds. In this case, the amount of the Debt Service Reserve Fund is an amount equal to 
100 percent maximum annual debt service on the proposed Refunding Bonds or approximately 
$1,243,918. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

94 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



bond proceeds. Ms. Sesay estimates that the cost of 
issuance would be $250,000. 

4. Ms. Sesay anticipates that the proceeds from the sale of 
the subject Refunding Bonds will be invested in State and 
Local Government securities which will mature on April 
1, 2003, the first available call date for the 1993 Parking 
Revenue Bonds. 

5. Ms. Sesay notes that the exact amount of the proposed 
Parking Revenue Refunding Bond issuance in an amount 
not to exceed $13,700,000, will not be known until the 
date of the sale of the Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds, 
as the interest rate will affect the aggregate principal 
amount needed to fund the refunding escrow account and 
the bond insurance. However, Ms. Sesay advises that it is 
standard industry practice that issuance of refunding 
bonds must result in a debt service savings of at least 
three percent of the bonds to be refunded, which in this 
case, for the original 1993 bonds, is $12,785,000. 
Therefore, in order to assure debt service savings of at 
least three percent, the Budget Analyst recommends that 
the proposed resolution be amended by adding the 
following provision: 

"further provided, that the par amount of the 
refunding bonds issued shall not exceed an 
amount that will produce a net present value 
debt service savings of at least three percent 
of the refunded amount of $12,785,000 to 
defease the Series 1993 Bonds, or $383,550 
as certified by the Corporation's independent 
financial advisor as a pre-condition to the 
Corporation's delivery of the Parking 
Revenue Refunding Bonds to the Trustee." 

Ms. Sesay concurs with the Budget Analyst's 
recommendation. 

6. According to Ms. Theresa Alvarez of the City 
Attorney's Office's, although the proposed resolution 
includes a provision to ratify previous actions taken in 
connection with the issuance of the proposed Parking 



BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Revenue Refunding Bonds, Ms. Alvarez is not aware of 
any such actions that have been taken. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 5 above, amend the 

proposed resolution to require that the par amount of the 
Parking Revenue Refunding Bonds to be issued by the 
San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation shall not 
exceed an amount that will produce a net present value 
debt service savings of less than three percent of the 
$12,785,000 which is the outstanding balance of the 1993 
bonds to be refunded. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
96 



»i" 02 1'iYED) 15:21 



AN PRANCISCO 



CITY k CO OF S. f. PARK [ NG D! 




PAHTMENT OP PAHKINQ A THAFHC 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 3 

City and County of San Francisco 




.LIE LEW18 BROWN, JR.. Mayor 

ED M. HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 



NALD SZETO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 



May 22, 2002 



Ms. Anna LflForte 

Analyst 

Budget Analyst's Office 

Ronald Szeto QjC, 
Acting Director 
Parking Authority 



THROUGH: Fred Hamdun 

Executive Director 

Department of Parking and Traffic 

SUBJECT: City of San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation Refunding 
Bonds 



Background: 

In 1 992, the Board of Supervisors approved the Fifth and Mission Public Parking Garage 
Lease (the "Lease"), dated as of April 1, 1992, between the City and County of San 
Francisco (the "City") and the City of San Francisco Downtown Parking Corporation (the 
''Corporation") for the management of the Fifth &. Mission Street Garage (the "Garage"). 
Under the terms of the Lease, the Corporation is required to obtain City approval lor the 
issuance of lax-exempt bonds and the execution of various documents relating thereto. 

Also under the terms of the Lease, the Corporation is required to solicit a professional 
parking operator through a competitive process for the daily parking management of the 
Garage and to obtain the Parking and Traffic Commission authorization to execute a 
management agreement between the Corporation and the parking operator. The 
Corporation is also required to submit an annual operating budget to the Parking and 
Traffic Commission for review and lo the Controller's Office for approval. Furthermore, 
the Corporation is required to obtain the Parking and Traffic Commission authorization to 
expend funds for capital improvements to the Garage 



5154-PARK FAX (415) 654. 9634 



25 Vin N»«s Avonuo. 3ullo 410 



97 



San Francisco, CA 84102-4370 



ttLLacnment 



M\V -22 02 (WED) 1321 CITY t CO OF S. F PARKING DEPT Page 2 ot 3 



Ms. Anna LaForie 
May 22, 2002 
Page 2 of 3 

In 1993, the Corporation issued Parking Revenue Bonds the "Series 1993 Bonds" lo 
upgrade and expand the Garage by adding approximately 700 spaces on two additional 
parking levels. 

As of May 1, 2002, the Series 1993 Bonds had an outstanding principal in the amount of 
512,785,000 of Parking Revenue Bonds. Final maturity on the Bonds is April 1, 2017. 
Interest rate ranges from 6.15% to 6.65% (weighted average interest rate on the 
outstanding Series 1993 Bonds is 6.62%) and the annual payment is approximately 
51,320,000. 

Pursuant to the Indenture, dated as of February 1, 1 993 between the Corporation and the 
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, as trustee (the "Indenture"), 
the Corporation retains 15%, up to SI ,000,000 maximum of net revenues from the 
operations of the Garage, in a Surplus Revenue Fund, for capital improvements (the other 
85% is transferred to the City). Capital improvements at the Garage arc funded from the 
Corporation's Surplus Revenue Fund which is established under the Indenture. For 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the Corporation anticipates approximately SI. I million in surplus 
revenues. 

Prouosnl? 

Unlike the Ellis-O'Farrell Garage proposal, staff and the Corporation propose to 
authorize the Corporation to take advantage of lower interest rates by issuing refunding 
bonds to reduce the annual debt service because the Corporation already have funds 
available for capital improvements. Based upon current interest rates, debt service on the 
refunding bonds is estimated to be approximately $1,210,000, representing approximately 
SI 08,000 in annual savings. Pursuant to Federal tax law, the Corporation may refund the 
Series 1993 Bonds up to 180 days in advance of their first call dale. Given the April 1, 
2003 call dale on the Series 1993 Bonds, the refunding bonds could be issued on October 
1,2002. 

Moreover, we propose to adjust the maximum amount allowable for the Surplus Revenue 
Fund from 51,000,000 to 51,500,000 The increase of the maximum amount would allow 
the Corporation lo set aside sufficient funds to address impending concrete work on each 
Garage level and other necessary repairs. 

The Corporation is being assisted in this bond refunding by a leant of individuals 
representing: the Department of Parking and Traffic, the Mayor's Office cf Public 
Finance, the City Attorney's Office, Co-Bond Counsel (Orrick, Harrington & Sulcliffc 
and Lofton and Jennings), Co-Financial Advisors (Public Financial Management and 
Municipal Capital Management) and Corporation Counsel (Mr. Paul Newman). 



98 



Attachment I 
O: (WED) 13:21 CITY k CO OF S. F. PARKING DEFT Page 3 of 3 



Parking and Traffic Commission 
May 7,~2002 
Page 3 of 3 

As of May 1, 2002, the refunding team estimates a True Interest Cost (TIC) of 4.74% on 
the new bonds and gross annual debt service net present savings of SI 08,000 that 
represents net present value savings of 6.007% of the par amount of the refunding bonds. 
A minimum savings threshold of 3.00% is the proposed target for the refunding, meaning 
that the transaction may not be executed if NPV savings fell below 3.00%. The final 
maturity of the proposed refunding bonds would be April 1 , 201 8, the same as the 
existing bonds, so the debt service would not be extended. 

The cost of issuance of the refunding bonds is estimated at no more than S250,000. 
However, the Corporation would not be obligated for any significant amount should 
market conditions change unfavorably and the refunding bonds are not issued. 

The Department of Parking and Traffic recommends adoption of the proposed 
Resolution. 



Cc: Diana Hammons, DPT 



II 'I'AnKING'Cumuei'-iAh .ma MisiionVBurigiil Anjlyu :'o.- fie fund in 3 Buidj.ilnc 



NAY-21-2QE3 



'.-■ Jb 



GF FUEL! 



FINfiNCE 



Attachment II 
Page i ot 2 



SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 

Downtown Parking Corporation 
2002 Refunding of Senes 1993 



Sources. 



Bond Proceeds: 
Paj- Amount 



13,490,000 00 



Other Sources of Funds: 
Bond Funds 
DSRF 



396.09525 
1. 562.690.80 
1,758.586.05 



15,248.536 05 



Uses 



Refunding Escrow Deposits: 
Cash Deposit 
SLG Purchases 



0.11 
13,666,708.00 
13.666,708.11 



Other Fund Deposits: 

Debt Service Reserve Fund 



1.243,917.63 



Delivery Date Expenses: 
Cost of Issuance 

Underwriter's Discount 



Other Uses of Funds: 
Additional Proceeds 



Not:: Run »ith A -Scale Plus 25 Basis Points and no Ir.juranct 



250,000.00 
87,635.00 



337.685.00 



275.31 



15.248.5S6.05 



May 8. 2C07 1 1 52 am Prepared by Pub'-.c Financial Management, Ir.c. 



P1AY-21-2Q02 13 :46 



OFFICE OF FUEL I C FINANCE 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2" 



Daxe 



04/01/2003 
04701/2004 
04/01/2005 
04/01/2006 
04/01/2007 
04/01/2008 
04/01/2009 
04/01/2010 
04/01/20 II 
04701/2012 
04/01/2013 
04V01/20U 
04/01/2015 
04/01/2016 
04701/2017 
04/01/2018 



SAVINGS 

Downtown Pirlang Corporation 

2002 Refunding of Sertci 1993 

A-Scoie as of May 7. 2002 Plus 2S Basis Points 



Prior 
Debt Service 



Refunding 
DebLService 



Saving! 



Present Value 

(O07/01/20C2 

@ 4.36901-43% 



1,320.317.50 

1.320,797.50 
1.213,922 50 
1,318,552.50 
U15.B90.00 
1.320,935 00 
UI8.032.50 
1.317.510 00 
1.319,040.00 
1.317,295.00 
1.317,275.00 
1,317.757.50 
1,319,250.00 
1.316,420.00 
1.319,267.50 
1,317.127.50 



1.243,917.63 
1,221.57950 
1,218.355.00 
1.216,710.00 
1.212.322.00 
1,220,243.00 
1,215.038.00 
1.217. 188.00 
1,216.470.50 
1,213, 3^0-50 
1.217,642.50 
1.213,632.50 
1,216.444.50 
1.215,558.50 
1.215.953-50 
1.217.485.50 



76.399.37 

99213.00 
100567.50 
101.842.50 
102,568.00 
100,592.00 
102.994.50 
100.322.00 
102569.50 
103.954.50 

99.632.50 
104,125.00 
102,805.50 
100.86150 
103.209.00 

99.642.00 



21,094,200.00 19,491,986.13 1,602,403.87 



83.558.80 
93,716.00 
90.351.04 
87,032.48 
84.189.16 
77.858.34 
75,827.01 
70.31354 
68.389.24 
65,939.90 
'60.162.04 
59.781.79 
56,151 83 
52.«>i.75 
51.042.12 
46.819.35 



1,123,542.40 



Sa.vin.gs Summary 



PV of savings from cash flow 
Less: Prior funds on hand 
Plus - Refunding funds on hand 

Net PV Sevings 



1.123,542.40 
-1.758.53605 
1.244,192.94 



609,1*9.29 



Rua wuh A-ScaJe Plus 25 Basis Points and no Insurance eai: 



2002 11 52 am Prepared by Public Fr.ancid Management. [.-.-- 



101 



Pjft 3 



«aa 22 Q2 1 : 3 1 p 



John R . Brown 





• 








-H 


o 


$ 





2 


y 


U 


O 






o 


„ 


o 






u 




E 


— 


2 






O 


3 




en 


-« 


TJ 


c 












■o 


i 


III 






ri 


en 












c 




m 












— 

D 

3 

n 

in 

•&<> 

IS 

en 
O 


s 




ro 






-j 






<o 

o 

to 






w 

eo 


s 




en 
o 

o 
a 






in 
■>l 

en 


{£ 




a 


<s 




o 






o 






I J 






en 
•n 


St 




a 






a 






o 















— { w Z! en o Z? "a 



5 3" n 5 1 



s^j;^! 



ooin!)3icniPi 3;cnojjgnw-33333-oGp 






MMO U» LTl M 

_ui o J* yi p oi 
o o *-» o "o "o 



2 -o 
o 5 



Attachment II 
fage I of 2 



i 5 



102 



'ay 21 02 



John R . Brown 



Afctachmen t III 
Pige 1 of 2 




103 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 11 -File 02-0851 



Department: 



Item: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of 
certificates of participation to finance the acquisition, 
improvement, construction and/or reconstruction of a new 
juvenile detention facility to replace the existing San 
Francisco Juvenile Hall; approving the form of a property 
lease between the City and County of San Francisco (the 
"City") and a trustee relating to certain City-owned 
property (as further described in this Resolution) and: a) 
approving the form of a project lease between the City 
and a trustee (including certain indemnities contained 
therein); authorizing the selection of a trustee; b) 
approving the form of a trust agreement between the City 
and a trustee (including certain indemnities contained 
therein); c) approving the form of an official notice of sale 
and notice of intention to sell for the certificates of 
participation; d) approving the form of an official 
statement in preliminary and final form; e) approving the 
form of a continuing disclosure certificate; f) authorizing 
the filing of a validation action validating the execution 
and delivery of the certificates of participation; g) 
authorizing the reimbursement of certain expenditures; h) 
authorizing the payment of costs of issuance; i) adopting 
findings under the California Environmental Quality Act 
and findings pursuant to the City Planning Code Section 
101.1; and, j) ratifying previous actions taken in 
connection therewith. 



Principal Amount of 
Certificates of 
Participation 
Issuance: 



$45,000,000 



Project Purpose: 



Comment: 



Juvenile Hall Replacement Project 

The proposed resolution was introduced at the full Board 
of Supervisors on May 20, 2002. Consequently, as of the 
writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has had 
insufficient time to prepare a full report on this item. The 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

104 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget Analyst also notes that a companion measure, 
authorizing the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice to 
accept and expend $15,075,000 for the proposed Juvenile 
Replacement Project was also introduced at the Board of 
Supervisors on May 20, 2002 and referred to the Finance 
Committee. 

The Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed 
resolution be continued by the Finance Committee to its 
meeting of June 5, 2002. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed resolution to the Finance 

Committee meeting of June 5, 2002. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

105 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 02-0773 



Department: 



Item: 



Location: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) 

Real Estate Division, Administrative Services (RED) 

Resolution (a) transferring jurisdiction from the Public 
Utilities Commission to the Municipal Transportation 
Agency of the real property identified as a portion of 
Assessor's Parcel No. 5262/9 for a substation for the San 
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Third 
Street Light Rail Project; (b) adopting findings pursuant 
to the California Environmental Quahty Act (CEQA); and 
(c) adopting findings that the transfer of jurisdiction is 
consistent with the City's General Plan and the Eight 
Priority Policies of the Planning Code Section 101.1. 

An approximate 3,464 square foot land parcel, located at 
Phelps Street and Hudson Avenue 



Amount Payable by 
the MTA to the PUC: 



Source of Funds: 
Description: 



$1,975 ($0.57 per square foot times 3,464 square feet) 
payable by the MTA to the PUC. In April, 1947, the PUC 
originally purchased from the Southern Pacific Railroad a 
240,000 square foot land parcel, which includes the 
subject 3,464 square foot parcel, for a total purchase price 
of $136,752 (approximately $0.57 per square foot times 
240,000 square feet). Pursuant to Administrative Code 
Section 23.20, the PUC is now selling the subject land 
parcel to the MTA at historical cost. 

Proposition B Sales Tax Revenues 1 

The PUC currently owns a 360,000 square foot land 
parcel located on Cesar Chavez Boulevard, between 
Jerrold and Galvez Avenues. On June 20, 2000, the MTA 
requested the transfer of 3,464 square feet of the 360,000 
square foot land parcel from the PUC to the MTA for the 
construction of a new electrical substation building on the 
subject site, which will furnish traction power for a 
segment of the new Third Street Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) 



1 Proposition B, which was approved by the San Francisco voters in November, 1989, provides a 0.5 
percent Sales Tax to be used for transportation projects. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Project. 2 The PUC approved transfer of the 3,464 square 
foot land parcel to MTA on October 10, 2000. Between 
October 10, 2000, and February 19, 2002, the PUC and 
the MTA negotiated the terms of the transfer of the 
property, and on February 19, 2002 the MTA Board 
approved the transfer and purchase of the subject 
property. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Susan Olive of the Municipal Railway 

(Muni), Muni will construct a power substation to convey 
electrical power for the Third Street Light Rail on the 
land parcel at Phelps Street and Hudson Avenue. Ms. 
Olive states that the proposed substation is one of four 
power substations that Muni will construct to convey 
electrical power for the Third Street Light Rail. The four 
electrical power substations will be located at (a) Phelps 
Street and Hudson Avenue, which is the subject of this 
request, (b) Illinois Street between 16 th and Mariposa 
Streets, (c) Keith Street and LeConte Avenue, and (d) the 
Metro East Maintenance Yard east of Illinois Street 
between 25 th and Cesar Chavez Streets. Ms. Olive 
advises that Muni selected the proposed power substation 
site at Phelps Street and Hudson Avenue through 
meetings with the neighborhood and the Third Street 
Light Rail Project Citizens Advisory Group, consisting of 
corridor residents, community organizations and 
businesses. 

2. Ms. Olive advises that the MTA will award a 
$8,442,733 contract prior to the end of June, 2002, to 
Mitchell Engineering, selected through a competitive bid 
process, to construct power substations on three of the 
four power substation sites. 3 The three substation sites 
include Illinois Street, Keith Street, and the subject 
Phelps Street.' 1 Under the contract with Mitchell 



2 The Third Street Light Rail Vehicle Project is a light rail line primarily along Third Street, linking 
portions of the Chinatown, Downtown, South of Market, Potrero Hill/ Central Waterfront, Bayview 
Hunters Point, and Visitacion Valley/ Little Hollywood neighborhoods. 

3 According to Ms. Olive, construction of the fourth substation located at the Metro East 
Maintenance Yard will be included in the overall construction of the Metro East Maintenance Yard 

1 Ms. Olive advises that MTA is currently negotiating with the State CalTrans to purchase the site 
at 3 rd and Keith Streets, and under the contract with Mitchell Engineering, the contractor will not 
proceed with the work on the Keith Street substation until negotiations are completed. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

107 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Engineering, the contractor will prepare the three sites 
for construction, including mitigation of hazardous 
materials on the sites, and construct concrete masonry 
substations on the Illinois Street and Phelps Street sites 
and a pre-fabricated substation on the Keith Street site. 
Ms. Olive advises that MTA will fund the $8,442,733 
contract mainly through Proposition B Sales Tax 
Revenues. 

3. Ms. Olive advises that construction of the power 
substations will begin after the contract is awarded and 
that the power substations will be ready for testing in late 
2004 or early 2005. According to Ms. Olive, MTA 
anticipates that the Third Street Light Rail Vehicle 
Project will be completed and the LRVs will be operating 
in mid-2005. 

4. The Planning Commission originally certified the Third 
Street Light Rail Project Environmental Impact Report 
(EIR) in December, 1998, 5 and the Board of Supervisors 
adopted these findings in File 00-1347. According to Ms. 
Olive, the Planning Department conducted a re- 
evaluation of the Third Street Light Rail Project EIR in 
February, 2001, to determine if proposed changes to the 
Third Street Light Rail Project would significantly alter 
the environmental impact. Ms. Olive states that the 
Planning Department found that the proposed changes to 
the Third Street Light Rail Project would not result in 
substantial changes to the environmental impact. 
Additionally, the Planning Department determined that 
the Third Street Light Rail Project was in compliance 
with the eight Priority Policies of the Planning Code and 
in conformity with the General Plan. 6 

5. According to Ms. Amy Brown of the City Attorney's 
Office, pursuant to Administrative Code Section 23.20, 
the PUC may transfer the subject property to the MTA for 
the historical cost of the property, subject to Board of 
Supervisors approval. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



5 Planning Commission Motion No. 14742 

G September 7, 1999, letter from the Director of Planning to the MTA, and June 28, 2001 letter from 

the Director of Planning to the MTA. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

108 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 13- File 02-0826 



Department: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Rent 
Increases: 

Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Utilities: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 68 
12 th Street on behalf of the Department of Public Health, 
Emergency Medical Services 

The proposed lease is for the rental space at 68 12 th Street, 
Suite 200B. 

To provide space for the Emergency Medical Services 
(EMS) Section of the Department of Public Health (DPH) to 
serve as general offices and as a Department Operating 
Command Center during an emergency. 

12 th Street Partnership, a California General Partnership 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
the DPH 



3,507 square feet at a base monthly rate of $7,414 
(approximately $2.11 per square foot per month). On an 
annual basis, rent would total $88,968 (approximately 
$25.37 per square foot per year). 



None over the approximately five-year term of the lease. 

Approximately five years, commencing upon substantial 
completion of tenant improvements (estimated to be June 
15, 2002) and expiring on June 30, 2007. 

Option to renew for an additional term of five years, which 
would include a one-time increase in the base rent based on 
the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) 
for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area. 

To be provided by the City at an estimated annual cost of 
$777 per month ($9,324 per year). The City would also be 
responsible for the DPH's pro rata share of any increase in 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

1 nq 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the Lessor's identified costs 1 in excess of the 2002 base 
year. 

Janitorial Services: To be provided by the City at an estimated cost of $631 per 
month ($7,572 per year). 

Tenant Improvements: The total estimated tenant improvement costs to be fully 

paid by the City are $75,000 comprising: 

(a) $28,000 for a new emergency backup power 
generator 

(b) $10,000 for generator installation and engineering 
the roof to accommodate the generator 

(c) $37,000 for modifications to the interior 

The City will be responsible for all generator maintenance 
and operating costs. 



Source of Funds: 



The DPH has estimated total one-time costs associated 
with moving the EMS Section to 68 12 th Street of $121,683, 
which include tenant improvements ($75,000), moving 
($7,400) and Department of Telecommunications and 
Information Systems (DTIS) work order ($39,283) costs. 
These one-time costs are included in the DPH's approved 
FY 2001-2002 budget. 



The DPH's annual budget would include funds for the 
ongoing annual rent, utilities and janitorial services costs 
of 68 12 th Street, Suite 200B. 



Right of 
First Refusal: 



The City has the first right of refusal to a) rent any 
additional office space that becomes available in the 68 12 th 
Street building during the term of the proposed lease and b) 
purchase the building in the event that the Lessor decides 
to sell 68 12 th Street. 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would authorize the DPH to enter 
into an approximately five year lease for 3,507 square feet 
of space at 68 12 th Street. According to Mr. Julian 
Sutherland of the Real Estate Division, this space would be 
used for the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Section of 



1 According to Mr. Sutherland, identified costs include 1) Real Estate Taxes, 2) Insurance 
required to be carried on the building and 3) garbage collection. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

110 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the DPH as office space and as a Department Operating 
Command Center during an emergency. According to Ms. 
Judy Schutzman of the DPH, the EMS Section of the DPH 
is 1) the emergency, disaster and terrorism planning and 
response agency for the DPH, 2) the regulatory agency for 
all members of the San Francisco Emergency Medical 
Services System, including fire department first 
responders, ambulance providers and local hospital 
emergency departments and 3) the coordinating agency for 
intra-Department health and medical activities within the 
City. Mr. Sutherland advises that the proposed lease would 
accommodate 14 EMS Section employees during a normal 
office day and up to 49 persons during an emergency. 

Currently, the EMS Section occupies 3,341 square feet of 
leased space at 1540 Market Street. As discussed in 
Comment No. 1, according to Mr. Sutherland, the DPH will 
terminate the 1540 Market Street lease because the 
building does not meet current building code requirements 
and is not suitable for a disaster recovery center. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Sutherland, the EMS Section currently 

has a month to month lease at 1540 Market Street for 3,341 
square feet for $4,373 per month with full service except for 
repairs. Mr. Sutherland states, however, that the 1540 
Market Street building does not meet current seismic, fire 
or other building codes and cannot accommodate emergency 
response infrastructure, including uninterruptible power 
and additional roof antennas, or additional persons during 
an emergency which makes the building unsuitable as a 
disaster recovery center. Furthermore, Mr. Sutherland 
advises that preliminary discussions with the landlord of 
1540 Market Street indicated that the rent for a new lease 
would increase by approximately 105 percent or to $9,000 
per month. 

2. Mr. Sutherland reports that the current 3,341 square 
feet at 1540 Market Street accommodates 14 employees 
during normal business hours (238 square foot per 
employee) and cannot accommodate additional employees 
during an emergency. The proposed lease, however, would 
provide an additional 166 square feet or a total of 3,507 
square feet, a five percent increase, which would 
accommodate the 14 employees of the EMS Section during 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

111 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 29, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



normal office hours (250 square foot per person) and up to 
49 persons during an emergency. 

3. According to Ms. Schutzman, the EMS Section 
anticipates adding 2.0 FTE personnel, including a 1.0 FTE 
Disaster Planner and a 1.0 FTE Terrorism Program 
Coordinator, m FY 2002-2003. Ms. Schutzman advises that 
these 2.0 FTE positions would be grant-funded positions 
and subject to Board of Supervisor approval of a new 
Federal grant that would fund terrorism response efforts. 
Ms. Schutzman reports that proposed lease would 
accommodate the additional 2.0 FTE personnel. 

4. Mr. Sutherland reports that, under the terms of the 
proposed lease, the EMS Section would receive two 
designated parking spaces in the building garage as well as 
space on the building roof for City equipment, including an 
emergency electric generator, satellite receiver and radio 
antenna. 

5. Mr. Sutherland reports that the proposed lease at the 
monthly rate of $2.11 per square foot represents fair 
market value. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 




'/ 

tarvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
President Ammiano 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

112 - 



, BiNDEm i n 

^UIICAOMAH-. N[ 

2001